Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Business before Questions

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, entitled The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, dated 15 June 2021.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

The Secretary of State was asked—

Human Rights Violations against Uyghurs: Sanctions

James Murray: What plans he has to extend Magnitsky-style sanctions to Chen Quangou, Party Secretary of Xinjiang region in China, in response to his alleged involvement in human rights violations against the Uyghur.

Nigel Adams: On 22 March, the Foreign Secretary announced global human rights sanctions against four Chinese officials and one entity responsible for serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. We did so alongside the United States, Canada and the European Union, sending a powerful message to China about the strength of international concern. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to keep all potential evidence and listings under close review.

James Murray: While we wait for the Government to take further action on sanctions against individuals, I would like to press the Minister on whether the UK Government will follow this House and the US and Canadian Governments in declaring the Chinese Government’s persecution of the Uyghur people to be a genocide.

Nigel Adams: As the hon. Member probably knows, we do not shy from taking action. We have led international efforts to hold China to account. It is the long-standing policy of several Governments of the United Kingdom that the determination of genocide should be by a competent court.

Aid Budget Reduction: Humanitarian Impact

David Davis: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian impact of reducing the UK aid budget.

Steven Bonnar: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of reductions in the UK aid budget on UK humanitarian work overseas.

Martin Docherty: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of reductions in the UK aid budget on UK humanitarian work overseas.

Hannah Bardell: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of reductions in the UK aid budget on UK humanitarian work overseas.

Dominic Raab: The UK will spend £10 billion in official development assistance in 2021, making us the third highest bilateral humanitarian donor country based on the OECD data.

David Davis: Let me start by saying that I understand full well that this is a policy imposed by an unintelligent Treasury edict. Nevertheless, it has, potentially, the fatal consequences of a medium-sized war. The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa could not tell us whether the 60% cut to Yemen meant more or less than 260,000 deaths of women and children as a result. On Ethiopia, where the UN told us that 350,000 faced imminent starvation, the Minister for Africa—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge)—yesterday could not tell the House the size of the cut in our aid. I understand from impeccable sources that we propose to cut that aid by £58 million—more than half. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm the size of that cut and tell the House what we intend to do to reduce the hundreds of thousands of deaths arising from our policy?

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I do not accept the proposition that he has put forward. As a global leader in ODA—and we continue to be a global leader in ODA—we stretch to put as much in as we possibly can. Of course, we have temporary financial exceptional circumstances, but we will get back to 0.7% as soon as we can. He raised, in particular, the issue of Yemen. We have committed at least £87 million in 2021—that is more than £1 billion since the conflict began. He asked about the firm statistics. They are sent out in the normal way through Development Tracker and the final returns that are made annually.

Steven Bonnar: Last week, the Prime Minister casually dismissed protests against billions of pounds-worth of aid cuts as “lefty propaganda”. Analysis by Save the Children estimates that at least 3 million people in need of life-saving humanitarian assistance right now will not receive it because of this Government’s decision. Can the Foreign Secretary not see that this is not about left or right? It is about right and wrong. Does he recognise that this is not propaganda? This is about life and death for the most vulnerable people, so will he now U-turn on this decision before it is too late for them?

Dominic Raab: What I recognise is that we remain the third largest donor in the G7, based on GNI. What I recognise is that we have made the biggest ever donation to the Global Partnership for Education, pursuing our goal of 40 million girls receiving 12 years of education. As a result of that, we raised at the G7 billions of pounds from other partners towards that goal. What I recognise is that we have doubled bilateral spending on international climate finance and we secured, through our donation of 100 million surplus vaccines, a contribution of a billion more by the middle of next year, which means that we will be able to vaccinate the world not at the end of 2024, which is the current trajectory, but by the mid-point of next year. That is what global Britain is about. That is what we achieved at the G7.

Martin Docherty: Two aspects of the recent integrated review that jumped out at me were the explicit wish to integrate diplomacy and development and the so-called Indo-Pacific tilt, which stated the desire to see the UK’s ODA more effective in the region. As a member of the Defence Committee, I am always interested to know how one can make the so-called region that is home to three of the five largest states in the world, and which is named after the first and third largest oceans on the planet, any sort of effective domain for UK foreign policy, so can the Foreign Secretary, while his Government cut aid to many of the poorest in the world, advise the House which areas or countries of the Indo-Pacific they will be prioritising to maintain their investment with this new-style of integrated development and diplomacy?

Dominic Raab: As I mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the final figures, as has historically always been the case, come out not just through DevTracker, but in the international development statistics.
Let me give the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) the example that I think he is searching for. At the weekend, we made a £430 million contribution to the Global Partnership for Education—a 15% increase on last year that will affect many of the countries and regions that he describes. Above all, we used not just our aid spend, but our diplomatic convening power, to get others to make billions of pounds’ worth of contributions. Not only will that encourage 40 million more girls back into education, but it will help to deliver our second goal of getting 20 million more girls literate by the age of 10.

Hannah Bardell: The real question is: do this Tory Government even care? At a time when the poorest nations of the world need support, humanity and compassion, this UK Tory Government are turning their back. Even one of their own Back Benchers has admitted that these cuts will kill. The other G7 countries have stepped up their aid budget; the UK is the only one to cut it. It is utterly shameful. Do you know what I really want to know, Mr Speaker? I want to know how the Foreign Secretary and his Tory Government sleep at night, knowing that they have the blood on their hands of some of the poorest people in the world.

Dominic Raab: I think that that was pretty unsavoury from the hon. Lady, but I will tell her how we sleep at night. We sleep at night because we are the third biggest ODA budget contributor in the G7. We sleep at night  because we have just made the biggest global commitment on girls’ education ever, of any Government ever in the UK. We sleep at night because we are doubling the average annual spend on international climate finance. We sleep at night because we led the way with the 100 million doses that we are providing from excess surplus because of the money that we spent on the AstraZeneca vaccine: of the doses that the poorest countries have so far received via COVAX, 95% have come from AZ. In relation to humanitarian spend, bilaterally, we are the third biggest as well. We continue to be a global leader, but I think that our constituents would be asking some pretty serious questions if, at a time when we face the biggest contraction in our economy for 300 years, we were not also making or finding savings from the international as well as the domestic budget.

Preet Kaur Gill: COVAX aimed to deliver 2 billion doses of vaccine to countries around the world in 2021. Six months in, less than 5% of that total has been shipped. To rapidly vaccinate health workers and older people in low-income countries, we must address global shortages with a global plan to increase production of vaccines and equitable access. Instead, what we got this weekend from a Prime Minister who has been in perennial retreat from the world stage was a commitment to 5 million doses by the end of September, and a vague commitment to more at some point over the next 12 months. Does the Secretary of State agree that cutting the aid budget while most of his counterparts were increasing theirs made it harder for the Prime Minister to play a leadership role at the G7, and that the cuts are a key reason for the Prime Minister’s abject failure to deliver a comprehensive strategy that accelerates global vaccine access so that we can achieve at least 70% coverage in all countries and end the pandemic as quickly as possible?

Dominic Raab: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is just mistaken and clearly did not pay attention to what the G7 agreed. We agreed 100 million doses on the UK’s part by the middle of next year. That was not some kind of loose commitment; it was a very clear one, and comes on top of the 1 billion doses that we secured through our financial commitment to COVAX. As a result of our commitment, we have now raised the ability, through the G7 and the other contributions, to secure 1 billion extra doses, so there are new doses. What that will mean in practice is that rather than the world being vaccinated by 2024, as in the current trajectory, it will happen by the middle of next year. I would have thought that if the hon. Lady really cared about the issue, she would recognise that that is a massive step forward.

Chris Law: It is apparent that no matter how many examples we give of why the aid cuts should be reversed, the Foreign Secretary is either unwilling or unable to answer, so let us try this another way.
It is estimated that these cuts will result in the deaths of more than 1 million children throughout the world—1 million more than already die as a result of being the poorest and most vulnerable. Many of us have children of our own and would never neglect their fundamental needs, yet with no consent and with widespread opposition  both inside and outside this Parliament, this Government are determined to inflict death and suffering on those with no voice. Thinking of those children, will the Foreign Secretary finally commit to reversing the decision, or is he willing to let the ink dry on the death sentences on these innocent lives?

Dominic Raab: I have to say that using language like that reflects more on the hon. Gentleman than on the approach of the Government or any Ministers. Of course we take seriously the financial predicament we are in and the difficult choices we have made, but we remain the third biggest G7 donor, and I have given the House the positive effects that we will achieve with our £10 billion. Of course, if we were right at the bottom and donating only £1 billion a year, and we increased it by 20%, according to his moral paradigm we would be doing better than if we were giving £10 billion this year. That is a totally clueless approach to take.

Sarah Champion: I welcome the G7’s call for unimpeded access for aid workers to the Tigray region of Ethiopia, as a potentially catastrophic man-made famine is unfolding. The UN estimates that more than 350,000 people are currently living in famine conditions and that 2 million are just one step away. There are reports of crops being destroyed, farmers being prevented from cultivating land and food aid being stolen. Endemic sexual violence means that women and girls are staying in hiding, unable to seek the little food that is available. How much humanitarian aid is the FCDO providing to support this response, and how much of it has already been distributed? What action is the FCDO taking to secure and safeguard the distribution of emergency food aid to communities in Tigray, and what steps is it taking to work with partners to prevent a catastrophic famine?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Lady, like me, cares passionately about that appalling situation. I can tell her that we have provided £22 million of badly needed support to the people in Tigray. At the G7, under the UK presidency, we issued a statement on 2 April and on 5 May expressing deep concern. Following my visit in January and my conversation with Prime Minister Abiy, humanitarian access went from consent to notification, but we know that humanitarian workers still cannot reach the places they need to reach. We need to work on that, and we need to get Eritrean forces to withdraw. In relation to accountability for some of the appalling human rights abuses we have seen, we certainly support the High Commissioner for Human Rights in her planned investigations in conjunction with the Ethiopian human rights commission.

Iran

Greg Smith: What recent assessment he has made of Iran’s compliance with the 2015 joint comprehensive plan of action nuclear agreement.

Tobias Ellwood: What discussions he has had with his Iranian counterpart in the last six months.

Dominic Raab: Iran is systematically in non-compliance  with the joint comprehensive plan of action—the JCPOA—and, working with our European partners and with the United States, China and Russia, we expect and require a return to full compliance.

Greg Smith: The UN’s nuclear watchdog has warned that Iran is now producing uranium at levels that “only countries making bombs” are reaching, after successfully enriching to 60% purity. Given that this knowledge cannot be unlearned, does my right hon. Friend share my concern that Iran’s nuclear activities already extend far beyond the outdated JCPOA? What steps will he be taking to address not only Iran’s nuclear belligerence but its support for terrorism and the ballistic missile programme?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just the stockpile of enriched uranium, which is 16 times the permitted limit, but the operation of the centrifuges and the production of uranium metal that are of deep concern. All sides agree that Iran must return to full compliance, and there has been some progress in the talks in Vienna, but a successful outcome is far from guaranteed. Those talks cannot continue to be open-ended; we need to see a return to full compliance. My hon. Friend is also right to refer to the need for “longer and stronger”, as it is dubbed, to ensure not just that we have permanent guarantees in relation to the nuclear issue but that we address the destabilising activity that Iran sponsors. I have just got back from Iraq, where we can see at first hand the support for the Shi’a militias and what that means in practice.

Tobias Ellwood: May I first pay tribute to the work of the HALO Trust, a British charity and the largest de-mining organisation working in Afghanistan? Tragically, 10 of its team were killed in an ISIS attack a week ago. James Cowan, the CEO, has vowed to continue their important work, and I hope that the Government will encourage the Afghan Government to improve local security so that the HALO Trust can continue that important work.
In the 1970s, we attempted to sell 100 Chieftain tanks to Iran. We took the money—£400 million—but following Iranian revolution, the tanks were of course never delivered. We need to repay that debt, because it is starting to interfere with other bilateral issues. I invite my right hon. Friend to speak to Tony Blinken, because this is to do with legacy sanctions and we need to resolve the issue.

Dominic Raab: I pay tribute not just to the work of the HALO Trust—I extend my condolences for the loss of life—but to all the non-governmental organisation workers on the frontline who take extraordinary risks to do incredible work.
On the International Military Services debt to which my right hon. Friend referred, we have always said that we are committed to resolving that issue. I shall not say more at this point because legal discussions are ongoing and I do not want to prejudice them.

Fabian Hamilton: I join the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) in sending our thoughts and best wishes to the victims of the terrible attack on the HALO Trust staff in  Afghanistan. Ten people were murdered and many more injured, and I am sure the whole House would want to send best wishes and sympathies.
The proposed plan to increase the UK’s stockpile of nuclear warheads has made it abundantly clear that the Government have ditched multilateralism and embraced unilateralism. Such a reckless move is out of step with all our allies and will have a big impact on our ability to participate in nuclear non-proliferation agreements such as the JCPOA with Iran. What impact does the Foreign Secretary think the proposed increase in warheads will have on our international standing, given that we appear to have abandoned our obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Will he recommit to those obligations today?

Dominic Raab: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the maintenance of a minimum credible deterrence has zero impact on the JCPOA talks and is entirely consistent with our non-proliferation obligations.

Foreign Policy and Overseas Aid: Co-ordination

Alun Cairns: What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of strengthening co-ordination between foreign policy and overseas aid.

Wendy Morton: The creation of the FCDO combines our diplomatic network with our development expertise and resource to maximise our interests, influence and impact as a global force for good. The Foreign Secretary’s strategic oversight of ODA is bringing greater coherence and impact to UK aid, sharpening our focus where we can make the most difference and ensuring that every penny delivers results. The integrated review sets out the ambition for the UK to be a model for an integrated approach to tackling global challenges.

Alun Cairns: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team on their part in securing the vaccination commitment to the developing nations at the G7 over the weekend. There are to be 100 million vaccines from the UK, 500 million doses from the US and 100 million from the EU bloc; although not necessarily proportionate, those commitments will have a major impact on the world’s most vulnerable people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of overseas aid is greater when it is integrated with our diplomatic aims?

Wendy Morton: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for asking that question. As we saw just last weekend at the G7 summit in Carbis Bay, the UK really can achieve much more when diplomatic and political levers combine with our development objectives, be that on vaccines, as he illustrated, or on girls’ education or climate change. We can also use aid commitments to leverage greater financial commitments from other G7 countries and multilaterals. The G7 development-finance institutions and multilateral partners have committed to investing more than $80 billion in the private sector in Africa over the next five years. This is the first time that those institutions have made a collective commitment on funding for Africa. That absolutely demonstrates how the UK’s diplomatic network and development expertise can have a much greater impact when they work together.

Crimes against the Rohingya: Accountability

Rushanara Ali: What diplomatic steps he has taken to help ensure that the Myanmar military personnel responsible for crimes committed against the Rohingya are held to account.

Nigel Adams: Accountability is vital. The military has committed atrocities against the Rohingya and other minorities and must be held to account. We have sanctioned 16 individuals, including the commander-in-chief, for human rights violations against the Rohingya. We have sanctioned the two largest military-economic entities, which are both a key source of revenue for the military. We have boosted our funding to the independent investigative mechanism, which preserves evidence for future prosecution, and we have been clear in our support for the International Court of Justice process and that we urge the military to comply with the provisional measures ruling.

Rushanara Ali: May I first extend my solidarity with, and deepest condolences to, the HALO Trust staff who were killed in Afghanistan and to all those who were injured?
Myanmar’s military has been allowed to act with impunity against the Rohingya, and its assault has now widened to the whole population following the military coup earlier this year. At the same time, our Government have unfortunately slashed the budget by nearly half for the refugee camps in Bangladesh, and humanitarian cuts are likely in Myanmar. While the Foreign Secretary is listening, may I ask the Minister once again to reverse those cuts, because they are literally costing lives? Will the Foreign Secretary and the Minister also please consider formally joining Gambia on the genocide prevention case at the ICJ? If they do not agree to do so now after all that has happened and after all that the Myanmar military has done, then when will we formally join, given that we are a leading country in relation to Myanmar?

Nigel Adams: I know how passionate the hon. Lady is about the situation in Myanmar, particularly on behalf of the Rohingya community. On the ICJ case, we have been absolutely clear in our support for the process. We have urged the military to comply with the provisional measures rulings, and we have provided funding to enable Rohingya refugees to attend those hearings in December 2019.
With regard to aid support, we remain a leading donor to the Rohingya response, providing more than £320 million to the Rohingya response in Bangladesh since 2017. That includes £27.6 million of new funding announced in May in Rakhine State. We have provided more than £44 million to all communities since 2017, including over £25 million for the Rohingya. The Government are providing education, nutrition, water, sanitation, health and livelihoods.

Education of Girls: Covid-19

Julie Marson: What assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on the delivery of 12 years of quality education to girls throughout the world.

Wendy Morton: Covid-19 has raised the stakes for girls’ education, deepening the crisis that they already face in basic skills, and too many children have missed crucial schooling since last year, which we know does long-term damage to their future and disproportionately affects girls. The UK is committed to standing up for the right of every girl around the world to 12 years of quality education. That is why the UK has put girls’ education at the heart of our G7 presidency, and we are co-hosting the global education summit with Kenya in July.

Julie Marson: I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Does she agree that the G7 announcement on girls’ education represented a huge boost to our efforts to ensure that girls around the world get the education that they need and deserve?

Wendy Morton: Absolutely. We have put girls’ education at the heart of our G7 presidency and made huge strides in achieving our ambition of standing up for the right of every girl to 12 years of quality education. At the G7 summit in Cornwall, the Prime Minister secured a landmark commitment from our G7 partners to pledge at least $2.7 billion to the Global Partnership for Education ahead of the global education summit. That includes £430 million from the UK, which is an uplift of 15% on our current position as top bilateral donor, and our largest ever pledge to the GPE. That, along with our commitments to getting 40 million more girls into schools and 20 million more girls reading by the age of 10 in the next five years, demonstrates the commitment that this Government are putting into girls’ education.

Sri Lanka: Human Rights

Elliot Colburn: What steps he is taking to address human rights violations in Sri Lanka.

Nigel Adams: At the UN Human Rights Council in March, we successfully led a new resolution which expresses deep concern about the situation in Sri Lanka and enhances the UN’s monitoring role. For the first time, it requests that the UN collect evidence of human rights violations, for use in future accountability processes. We continue to engage with the Government of Sri Lanka on that process.

Elliot Colburn: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Tamils and on behalf of Tamils in Carshalton and Wallington, I thank the FCDO for its work in securing this new resolution at the UNHRC sessions. However, more can and should be done to provide accountability for the brutal war crimes committed during the Sri Lankan civil war. What actions can my hon. Friend take to ensure that evidence collected satisfies conditions for sanctions against current Sri Lankan officials who are credibly accused of overseeing the enforced disappearance and sexual assault of thousands of Sri Lankan civilians during the conflict?

Nigel Adams: As my hon. Friend will know, this Government have led international efforts over many years to promote accountability, reconciliation and human rights in Sri Lanka, including at the UN Human Rights  Council. The new UK-led resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council in March included, for the first time, a request for the UN
“to collect, consolidate, analyse and preserve information and evidence”
of human rights abuses and violations so that this can be used to support future accountability processes.

Aid Budget Reduction: Covid-19

Alex Cunningham: What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect of reductions in the UK aid budget on tackling the covid-19 pandemic.

Wendy Morton: [Inaudible]—is having on the world’s poorest countries. The FCDO is committed to the global effort to tackle the pandemic. We have made new public commitments worth up to £1.3 billion of ODA to counter the health, humanitarian and socioeconomic impacts of covid-19 and to support the global effort to distribute vaccines equitably, as well as adopting our programmes in 2020 amounting to more than £700 million. As we have heard, the Prime Minister announced at the G7 that the UK will donate 100 million vaccine doses within the next five years, with 5 million of those by the end of September, to ensure global vaccination by the end of 2022.[Official Report, 28 June 2021, Vol. 698, c. 1MC.]

Alex Cunningham: That is simply not good enough. With the failure of the Prime Minister to deliver a credible plan at the G7 for vaccinating the world compounding his savage cuts of 80% to clean water and sanitation programmes, which we all know are the best way of slowing the spread of covid-19, does the Minister agree that the scale and impact of these cuts on the lives and life chances of the poorest people in the world are devastating and that the pandemic will kill more people and actually last longer as a result?

Wendy Morton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was following entirely all the announcements at the G7 at the weekend, because we announced that we will donate 100 million vaccine doses within the next year, with 5 million by the end of September. Our Prime Minister led the G7 to help commit to ensure global vaccination by the end of 2022 and also announced his plan to share 1 billion vaccine doses, and to expand vaccine manufacturing as well. When it comes to our ODA commitments, the UK is one of the largest donors to the international response, committing up to £1.3 billion of ODA since the beginning of the crisis, and our overall ODA budget remains at £10 billion, helping the world’s poorest.

North Korea

Kieran Mullan: What recent assessment the Government have made of the political and humanitarian situation in North Korea.

Nigel Adams: The threat posed by North Korea continues to grow. Its nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes threaten to destabilise the region and pose a grave threat to international peace and security. The United Kingdom is deeply concerned that humanitarian needs in North Korea may be growing following the closure of its borders in January 2020. We  urge North Korea to facilitate access for international humanitarian organisations to carry out an independent assessment of needs and to allow aid to flow freely into that country.

Kieran Mullan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the international community’s complete failure to stop the ongoing brutal treatment and subjugation of the North Korean people is testament to the fact that we need new international structures to tackle the worst human rights abuses outside of the UN Security Council, which is not able to deliver on this and many other issues?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, but he can be reassured that the UK is clear that there must be no impunity for the most serious international crimes. The international community has a responsibility to respond to human rights violations in North Korea. The United Kingdom remains committed to continuing to push for action at all levels to bring pressure to bear on the Government of North Korea.

Alyn Smith: I listened with great interest to the Minister’s answer, and North Korea really should be higher up our agenda, because there is a looming humanitarian disaster coming in that country. The corn harvest is failing and food prices are now up 30-odd per cent., the border remains closed with China, so imports are not able to alleviate that, and we are also seeing electricity being diverted away from the provinces to Pyongyang—all the actions of a deeply unstable regime, but jeopardising the interests of 25 million people. We have heard great tell about the Indo-Pacific tilt and integrated foreign policy and development, but it really would be a lot more credible if we heard less about aircraft carriers and more about preparations for a pending humanitarian disaster.

Nigel Adams: The hon. Member is again right to raise this issue. We are extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in North Korea. He will be aware that our ambassador to North Korea maintains diplomatic relations from London. He routinely discusses issues of concern. We will seek to re-establish our presence in Pyongyang as soon as the border reopens. The Foreign Secretary and other G7 Foreign and Development Ministers made clear on 5 May our deep concern for the welfare of vulnerable communities, particularly in terms of access to adequate water, nutrition and medical facilities. This humanitarian assistance should be delivered consistent with UN Security Council resolutions and humanitarian principles.

Global Poverty and Inequality

Sally-Ann Hart: What steps he is taking to ensure that tackling global poverty and inequality remains a priority for his Department.

Virginia Crosbie: What steps he is taking to ensure that tackling global poverty and inequality remains a priority for his Department.

Christina Rees: What steps he is taking to reduce global poverty.

James Duddridge: The UK’s overseas development assistance continues to serve the primary purpose of reducing poverty in developing countries. We are proud that we remain firmly committed to helping the world’s poorest, and we will spend £10 billion on overseas development assistance this year—spending more on international aid in 2021 as a proportion of our gross national income than the majority of the G7.

Sally-Ann Hart: With Brexit, the UK has the freedom to be a truly global nation, not just in trade and diplomacy, but also in leading the world in tackling climate change, poverty and inequality. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have an opportunity to expand our presence abroad, particularly in developing nations, so that we have personnel on the ground who really understand the issues faced in these countries and who can advise on how aid can be specifically targeted to ensure real measurable help is given where it is needed most?

James Duddridge: I agree that we have an opportunity to expand our presence abroad, particularly in developing countries. As part of the UK’s diplomatic and development expansion, we now have heads of mission in Lesotho, Vanuatu and Eswatini. We are also opening a new British embassy in Djibouti and upgrading our two existing offices in Chad and Niger to full embassy status.

Lindsay Hoyle: Virginia Crosbie is not here, so I call Christina Rees.

Christina Rees: As a Labour and Co-operative party MP, I am so proud that tackling poverty is at the heart of the co-operative movement. What assurances can the Minister give that the co-operative sectors, which do so much to alleviate poverty in developing countries, will not be impacted by cuts to the aid budget? Will he commit to reinstate the 0.7% aid budget target?

James Duddridge: I can certainly commit to going back to 0.7%—that is the Government’s intention when the fiscal situation is right. I can agree to co-operate with co-operatives across the developing world—with a small C and a large C—including the Fairtrade movement.

Overseas Commercial Interests

Andrew Griffith: What diplomatic steps he is taking to advance the commercial interests of the UK overseas.

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend asks a very timely question, as the Prime Minister has today announced a free trade agreement with Australia, which will bring fantastic opportunities for British businesses from all over the United Kingdom. The UK-Australia trade relationship was worth more than £13.9 billion last year, and we look forward to it growing even further under this deal. The FCDO has co-ordinated the transition of 150 key international agreements in which the UK previously participated as a member of the EU, including supporting the Department for International Trade to agree bilateral trade agreements with 67 non-EU countries, plus the European Union.

Andrew Griffith: Ahead of English Wine Week next week, would the Minister give me his personal assurance that he will do everything in his power to ensure that our embassies and our high commissions around the world do all they can to promote and showcase this growing and successful English product?

Nigel Adams: I could not agree more, and I know my hon. Friend and I do our best to support this fantastic industry. There is no better champion for the British wine industry, and he has some superb vineyards in Arundel and South Downs. The quality of our sparkling wines in particular are superb, not least those from north Yorkshire vineyards, including the Yorkshire Heart vineyard in Nun Monkton and the Dunesforde vineyard in Upper Dunsforth. I recommend a visit. He is totally right: there should be no excuse for our embassies, our high commissions and our consulates not stocking British projects, including our wines. I am sure all our ambassadors and high commissioners are watching, so I would ask them to make sure that their cellars are stocked up with British produce, including our fantastic British wines.

Lindsay Hoyle: You should have told the Prime Minister to put it on last night.

Source of Covid-19 Outbreak: Discussions  with China

Antony Higginbotham: Whether he has had discussions with his Chinese counterpart on the source of the covid-19 outbreak.

Nigel Adams: In their call last month, the Foreign Secretary raised the response to the pandemic and global health reform with Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi. The Health Secretary also discussed covid-19 with his Chinese counterpart at the UK-China health dialogue in December 2020. He underlined that a shared understanding of the virus’s origins, grounded in robust science, is vital to global pandemic preparedness.

Antony Higginbotham: The covid-19 pandemic has had huge implications for the global economy, for our constituents across this House and for billions of people around the world, so it is vital that we learn the lessons and do not brush anything under the carpet for fear of reprisal. With President Biden having asked US intelligence agencies to investigate the origins of the pandemic, could the Minister reassure me and the House that we will be playing our full part in those efforts, and that we will be putting pressure on the Chinese Government to make sure that they behave in a much more transparent way than they have done to date?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. As he will know, phase 1 of the WHO-convened covid-19 origins study was always meant to be the beginning of the process, not the end. We are working with our international partners to support the timely, transparent, evidence-based and expert-led phase 2 study, including, as recommended by the experts report, in China. World Health Organisation director general Tedros has said that “all hypotheses remain open”, and further data and studies are required. As such, we expect all WHO member states to live up to their responsibilities and co-operate with phase 2.

Middle East: Two-state Solution

Hilary Benn: What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for a two-state solution in the Middle East.

Diana R. Johnson: If he will support the creation of the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace.

Peter Gibson: What diplomatic steps he is taking to support peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

James Cleverly: The UK remains fully committed to a two-state solution as the best way to permanently end the occupation, deliver Palestinian self-determination and ensure Israel’s Jewish and democratic identity. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 25 and 26 May for talks with senior leaders to reaffirm this commitment. We welcome the ceasefire in Israel and Gaza, and we are working with partners in the region to find a durable solution to the conflict. We also look forward to hearing more from the Alliance for Middle East Peace and the US Government about the international fund’s objectives and the projects it will support. Once more information is available, we will consider options for UK involvement.

Hilary Benn: As the Minister has said, for many years there has been widespread international support for a two-state solution, but he will know that a growing number of voices now say that the window on this is closing rapidly, and that if it does, Israel will have to accept full and equal civil rights for all Palestinians. In the light of this, what policy would he encourage the new Government formed this week to pursue?

James Cleverly: We congratulate the new Government on their formation and look forward to working with them in pursuit of the almost universally held goal in this House and across the international community of having a secure, sovereign, prosperous Palestinian state alongside a secure and stable and safe Israeli state. Ultimately it is for the Government of Israel to make decisions about these policies, but, as has been the long-standing position of the UK Government, we will work to support any and all actions which are complementary to or part of the process towards making that sustainable two-state solution through political negotiations a reality.

Diana R. Johnson: Despite hosting the G7 in Cornwall this weekend, the Government have yet again missed the opportunity to make global Britain a reality in the middle east by not seizing the initiative for UK leadership of the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Why did the Government pass over that opportunity, and is there any prospect of the UK stepping up and leading that exciting new project with the United States?

James Cleverly: I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for her passion for finding a peaceful resolution to this situation; it is our shared goal. As I said in my answer, we will look at the detail of what this programme seeks to deliver, and as yet all the details are not available to  us. We have always looked favourably on programmes that bring about peace but we want to make sure that they are effective and, as I have said, once we have more details we will assess our contribution or collaboration.

Peter Gibson: Over the last few weeks I have been contacted by many constituents who are distraught at the loss of civilian life on both sides. Will my right hon. Friend reassure them that the UK continues to work with both sides to avoid future conflict?

James Cleverly: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary travelled to both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories shortly after the most recent scenes of violence. We enjoy good relations with both the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel, and we will of course be working with the new members of the Israeli Government to pursue the long-standing UK policy of finding a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. I have no doubt that I speak on behalf of my right hon. Friend when I say that our efforts in this area are undiminished.

Wayne David: May I begin by expressing my sympathies to the families of the HALO Trust staff who lost their lives in Afghanistan? They were killed by an armed group while on a mission clearing land mines; they were extremely brave people and we pay tribute to them.
The British consul in Jerusalem recently visited his neighbours in Sheikh Jarrah. In support of the Palestinians he said that the threat to the community
“grows more acute by the day”.
He correctly stated that,
“Settlement activity & associated evictions & demolitions”
in East Jerusalem
“are illegal and undermine prospects for peace.”
Those are powerful words but what is needed is action, so what do the Government propose to do to ensure that Palestinians in East Jerusalem can live in peace and security, and that the rule of law prevails in East Jerusalem?

James Cleverly: The UK Government’s position on demolitions, settlement expansion and annexation is clear and long-standing. As I have said, we enjoy good bilateral relations with the Government of Israel and are able to speak with them frankly and firmly when we believe that their actions are counterproductive to a peaceful two-state solution. We will continue to do so, but ultimately the resolution to this long-standing challenge will be through negotiations between the Government of Israel and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, supported—perhaps even facilitated—by their friends in the international community, such as the United Kingdom.

Topical Questions

Mike Amesbury: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Dominic Raab: Since the last oral questions I have visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to discuss how to reinforce the ceasefire. I also visited  Saudi Arabia and saw at first hand the changes under Saudi Vision 2030, including greater rights for women, which we have been very much supporting; visited Iraq to support free and fair elections in October; and, of course, joined the Prime Minister in Carbis Bay for the G7 summit, which under his presidency delivered groundbreaking pledges on international vaccines, decisive action on climate change and G7 commitments to get 40 million more girls into 12 years of quality education.

Mike Amesbury: Nepal is in a deep covid crisis, with thousands of people dying each week because of the lack of oxygen supply and ventilators, and the severe lack of vaccines. Without urgent help from the UK Government, more lives will be lost. Can the Secretary of State outline what additional support the UK Government are providing following the visit last month by medical advisers to Nepal?

Dominic Raab: I am very concerned about the situation in Nepal. The UK announced very recently an additional support package, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the full details, so that he has all of that to hand.

Thomas Tugendhat: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about the workers serving so bravely in the HALO Trust in Afghanistan. He knows as well as I do that many other people are serving the Afghan community, and indeed the international community, by seeking to assist women and girls in education, to help farmers, and to fight the corruption in various institutions—and, indeed, the drugs business that has blighted so many lives.
Can the Secretary of State, today at the Dispatch Box, redouble his commitment to the Afghan National Defence and Security Force and to supporting all those institutions that made such a difference in protecting the Afghan population, and that really are the legacy of the British Army and many other armies’ continuous operations in Afghanistan over much of the last 20 years? Will he ensure that the sacrifice of all those who fought in Afghanistan, and all those who have given so much to rebuilding it, will not go to waste in aid cuts that are so unnecessary?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right to point to the precarious situation in Afghanistan. We had long, detailed talks not just with the United States at Carbis Bay but with other allies. We had the NATO summit as well, which has been an opportunity to reinforce the need to stand by those who have stood by us in the way that my hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee described, and to ensure that we encourage a political dialogue to avoid the spectre, or the risk, of civil war and that we bank not just the security gains from all the blood, sweat and tears that have been spent in Afghanistan, but a more inclusive Government.

Lisa Nandy: I associate myself with the tributes paid to the brave workers of the HALO Trust and put on record our unequivocal condemnation of the targeting of a BBC journalist outside Parliament yesterday. Press freedom is under attack around the world; we must defend it here.
Yesterday, NATO recognised China as a systemic challenge to our security and the values that underpin it for the first time. While we welcome the reference to forced labour in the G7 communiqué, the failure to agree concrete measures in relation to Xinjiang was a missed opportunity to send a clear message that the world stands against genocide and anyone who seeks to profit from it. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he and the Prime Minister supported the stronger language and tougher measures that President Biden made it clear were needed, and that, despite the failure of the G7 to agree them, he will continue to do so?

Dominic Raab: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady said. Of course, she will know that there are varied views at the G7, including among our European partners, about quite how robust to be with China on some of these issues. She will know, because of the stance that the United Kingdom has taken in the Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly, the United Nations and other forums, and indeed from the statements that we have put out and the sanctions that we have imposed in relation to Xinjiang, how importantly we take the issue, but the reality is that in relation to China, on this and many other issues, we need to be able to carry a broader group of like-minded countries with us. That is why the Prime Minister invited India, South Korea and Australia to join the G7 as guests, and why it is important to engage with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in the way that we have been doing.

Lisa Nandy: While I welcome that, if we want to carry a broader group of like-minded countries with us we need to lead by example. Does the Secretary of State regret whipping his MPs to support preferential trade deals with countries that commit genocide? Can he tell us why, last week, his Government turned down almost every single recommendation made by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to get tough with China over forced labour in Xinjiang, and why the Minister for Exports, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), told parliamentarians last week:
“China offers more opportunity for the UK economy than perhaps any other market”?
The sheer incoherence of that approach is what, time and again, causes the Government to come up short. It gives us the absurd spectacle of Ministers standing up for human rights in the morning and then defending trade deals with countries that commit genocide in the afternoon. Will he please get a grip on that across Government, because who in the world could rely on a Government who cannot even rely on themselves?

Dominic Raab: I think the hon. Lady is a bit confused. Can she name a single country with which the United Kingdom under this Government is engaged on FTA negotiations that has committed anything close to genocide? Of course it is unthinkable; of course we would not do it. [Interruption.] Incorrect. What we have done—[Interruption.] She is chuntering from a sedentary position because she knows what she is saying is bereft of substance. We have imposed—we led the way in imposing—sanctions on Xinjiang. We have raised it at the G7 level. It is absolutely inconceivable that the UK would do a trade deal with any country that has engaged in genocide. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering again. It is absolute nonsense.
It is right, though, to say that we want a constructive and positive relationship, where that is possible, with China across the piece. In areas such as climate change, the hon. Lady talks a good game but does not seem to understand the elbow grease that needs to go into it. We need to have a conversation with China, because it is the biggest emitter and the biggest investor in renewable technologies, but we have demonstrated time and again that we never shrink from standing up for our values. She talks a good game; we do the business.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can we have less chuntering, as well?

Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend knows my concern about the impact of deforestation around the world. At the moment I am particularly concerned about what is happening in Brazil, where, far from giving greater protection to the Amazon rainforest, the Brazilian Government appear to be moving in a direction that will allow greater deforestation. Please will he take every step possible to put pressure on the Brazilian Government to ensure that that does not happen, and that protections for the Amazon are increased, not reduced?

Dominic Raab: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. On the positive side, we welcome President Bolsonaro’s commitment to reach zero illegal deforestation by 2030, and we are working with the Brazilian Government to address some of the underlying factors that fuel deforestation, including trying to get sustainable production of agricultural commodities—an issue not just in Brazil but around the world. Through international finance programmes, we have committed £259 million to help protect the Amazon, which has already enabled clearance of 430,000 acres to be avoided.

Janet Daby: The Government are fully aware that my constituent, Mr Anoosheh Ashoori, has been detained as hostage in Iran because of his British citizenship, with declining health and no contact with his family. Does the Secretary of State agree that Anoosheh should receive the benefit of every tool the Government have to secure his release, including diplomatic protection? If he does, will he update us on Anoosheh’s diplomatic status, and confirm whether dual nationals being held in Iran were discussed at the G7 summit?

Dominic Raab: I have had long conversations with the families of Anoosheh Ashoori and all the other dual nationals who have been detained. Nothing is more moving or heartbreaking in this job than seeing the situation of dual nationals in Iran and, indeed, of nationals and dual nationals around the world, and I have been intensively engaged in trying to resolve this. With other issues, it was something I discussed with our US friends at Carbis Bay. I am doing absolutely everything I can to secure the release and return home of all our detained dual nationals in Iran and, indeed, around the world.

Harriett Baldwin: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his whole team on delivering such a successful G7 summit in Carbis Bay. I welcome the generous contribution to the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education. May I ask for an assurance that as our economy recovers,  we will revert to 0.7% of GNP for overseas development assistance, and that our contribution represents merely the foundation of our ambition to ensure that every child in the world gets 12 years of quality education?

James Cleverly: I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I can assure her that in all the conversations we have about our commitment to Africa and to the broader world, ensuring 12 years of quality education for girls remains the top priority. We recognise that, as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, it is the Swiss Army knife for global problems, and it will remain a high priority for us, both in this part of the world and more broadly.

Layla Moran: While the Foreign Secretary was in Cornwall over the weekend, I was out knocking on doors in Chesham and Amersham. I spoke to lifelong Conservative voters, who told me that they were angry that the Government have broken their promises to them and the world’s poorest by cutting the aid budget. They said that they were planning to stay at home or vote Lib Dem for the very first time. Does the Secretary of State agree with them that, if someone wants to send a message to the Government on cuts to the aid budget, they should vote Lib Dem?

Lindsay Hoyle: I suspect he will not, but come on, Foreign Secretary.

Dominic Raab: I am glad that the folk of Chesham and Amersham managed to have a rare sighting of a  Lib Dem. I went to school in Amersham, and I can tell the hon. Lady that I do not think that they will be that daft come election day.

Sheryll Murray: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a successful G7 conference in Conservative Cornwall. During my time at the Royal College of Defence Studies, I led a seminar on the South China sea, and through my interest in fisheries I have gained knowledge on the UN convention on the law of the sea. Could he tell me what his Department is doing to encourage a code of conduct for the area that reflects UNCLOS?

Dominic Raab: I started life as a maritime lawyer, so I can geek on UNCLOS with the best of them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area. We welcome the negotiations between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on a code of conduct relating to UNCLOS. What is really important is that that reflects and is faithful to the international obligations in one of the world’s most widely ratified international treaties that is widely regarded as reflective of custom in international law. A code of conduct should not be used by China to unpick the obligations under UNCLOS.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just say that I am very disappointed that lots of Members have not got in? Those who asked questions and those who responded to them should consider others because, unfortunately, I am now ending questions and suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Sitting suspended.

Business of the House

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I should like to make a short business statement. Hon. and right hon. Members will be aware of yesterday’s announcement to extend covid restrictions until 19 July. As a consequence of that announcement, further regulations are needed. Therefore, tomorrow’s business will now be:
Wednesday 16 June—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by a motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 705), and a further motion that will provide for the current arrangements for parliamentary proceedings during the pandemic to continue until the summer recess.
I shall make a further business statement as usual on Thursday. Mr Speaker, you have asked me to advise hon. and right hon. Members that they will have until 3 o’clock today to apply to speak in tomorrow’s debate.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Leader of the House for an advance copy of his statement and for co-operation over the process.
In section 9 of the ministerial code, “Ministers and Parliament” general principle 9.1 states:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
As you noted, Mr Speaker, and as I too noted yesterday in my point of order, that was not followed yesterday in relation to a major announcement by the Prime Minister.
The Leader of the House regularly and correctly says that Members of Parliament have been sent here to represent constituents and should be able to scrutinise Ministers of the Crown in order to stand up for said constituents, and he has always been known as a man of the House and our representative to Cabinet. Does he agree with that statement in the ministerial code?
Given the motion that is being brought forward tomorrow, linking back to yesterday’s announcement, does the Leader of the House believe that the Prime Minister has abided by the letter and spirit of that statement, which is in bold at the top of section 9? If he does not, what will he do to make representations on our behalf to the Prime Minister? Does he understand that the Prime Minister’s absence from this House to take questions about that important announcement affects our ability to represent our constituents? Will there, therefore, be some mention of this over the course of the next 24 hours from the Prime Minister?
In addition to the package of motions that the Leader of the House has announced for tomorrow, will there be a statement from the Chancellor on an economic package of support, and a statement from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the Department for Work and Pensions about extending support for businesses and individuals who will be affected by the extension? In particular, will the Government now acknowledge that it is essential to provide payment for people asked to isolate who cannot work from home but are on low wages or in insecure work?
Will the Leader of the House ask his colleagues, in addition to the motions tomorrow, to come forward urgently with packages of support? Businesses such as hospitality businesses, which have stocked up and taken on staff who cannot be furloughed, and others, now face a series of cliff edges. That is relevant to the motions tomorrow, because they will affect what happens to those businesses, and many are on the edge.
The motions will also cover extending the rules for this place until recess, which I welcome. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to discuss fully those rules and what we can learn from the hybrid Parliament?
As we have this business statement, can I ask the Leader of the House this? He has not included in this statement parliamentary time to close the anomaly between the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme and the parliamentary Standards Committee in relation to recall, when an MP is subject to suspension on the recommendation of the ICGS. Will he cover that in his business statement on Thursday, given that it is an urgent piece of business? We have no idea when another case of sexual harassment or bullying may come forward.
Finally, on a related issue, you, Mr Speaker, may have seen the footage of a journalist with parliamentary credentials being harassed outside No. 10. Has the Leader of the House been in touch with the necessary authorities to ensure that that does not happen again?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is always important that statements are made to this House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was here yesterday to answer questions, but I understand, Mr Speaker, that you are seeing the Prime Minister later today to discuss that and to ensure that everything is done as it ought to be done. I am confident that the Prime Minister follows the ministerial code in all his doings and that has been shown over recent times to be the case.
The hon. Lady asked for further statements to be made. That is a perfectly reasonable request for her to make. I remind her that £407 billion of taxpayers’ money has been spent so far, that the furlough scheme continues until September—so comfortably beyond the date that has been set, or will be set if the regulations are approved tomorrow—and that other packages, such as rate relief, also continue.
The question of statements is always a difficult one. There will be a debate tomorrow and Members will want to contribute to it—it will go until 7 o’clock. Any statements eat into time for that and these are all matters that could be raised in the course of the debate as well. So the House, essentially, has to work out for itself how it best wants to manage its time to ensure that these important issues are discussed fully in the time available tomorrow.
As regards the hybrid Parliament, Mr Speaker, you wisely advised yesterday that we should extend it until the recess, rather than doing it to just a couple of days before. I am like the centurion’s servant—say go and I goeth, say come and I cometh—and, therefore, those are the motions that we have brought forward. That is sensible and proportionate. It may be useful to the House to say that that will also apply to Select Committees, which will continue to be able to use hybrid proceedings until the parliamentary recess.
On the issue relating to recall, discussions are taking place. I had a meeting with one of the union representatives earlier this week. I know that the hon. Lady is having discussions. There may be an opportunity to discuss it at the Commission on Monday. So it is something under very active consideration, and I hope that we can come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to everybody.
As regards policing in the metropolis and security outside Downing Street, the hon. Lady’s question is perfectly timed because the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing are on the Front Bench at this very moment. I am sure that they will encourage the constabulary to attend to their duties.

Owen Thompson: I also thank the Leader of the House for advance sight of the statement.
I agree with the shadow Leader of the House that it is critical for us to get clarity on the extension of support schemes and mechanisms. Perhaps the Government could take this opportunity to close the gap for the excluded who have not had any support to date. As we continue to extend, perhaps something could be drawn forward in due course.
Although all of us want the restrictions to end at the earliest possible opportunity, yesterday’s statement was welcome in recognising the reality that we face. Looking at that reality and the fluid situation, however, I ask the Leader of the House this. We are extending the virtual proceedings in this place only to the recess. Should something happen over the summer recess before we return in September, will we have no opportunity to consider what may be necessary at that stage because we had effectively ended the availability of the procedures in July, rather than even on the first day back? We could return on the first day back, in full attendance, simply  to have to move measures on such proceedings. I am not trying to be a killjoy; I am just looking at the practicalities: what if these situations present themselves?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He raises a fair point. I think the answer must be—as the Prime Minister and, I think, Professor Whitty, have said—that ultimately we are going to have to live with covid, and we cannot have this semi-functioning Parliament indefinitely. We ultimately have to get back to normal. We have to have the bustle and energy that Parliament requires to hold the Government to account. Dare I confess that it is much easier for the Minister at the Dispatch Box when there are about 20 people in the Chamber than when there are about 400? As somebody who believes in the benefits of parliamentary scrutiny, I actually think it is quite a good thing when Ministers face some fast bowling at the Dispatch Box, rather than my lumbering, slow balls which are the best that I can achieve on the cricket field.
On the extension of support, as I mentioned, a lot of support does continue. That gives me the opportunity to mention the wonderful support that the United Kingdom has been able to give: £14.5 billion of extra money has been spent in Scotland thanks to UK taxpayers across our whole country, supporting over 900,000 jobs in the furlough scheme and over 535,000 claims for the self-employment scheme. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is beginning to see the virtues of a United Kingdom.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am not quite sure he agrees, but there we are.
I am now suspending the House for one minute to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Priti Patel: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the report of the Daniel Morgan independent panel.
Daniel Morgan was murdered in London in 1987. It is incredibly painful for his family and friends that five criminal investigations into his brutal death have brought no successful prosecutions. In 2013, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who was then Home Secretary, announced the creation of the Daniel Morgan independent panel to review police handling of the murder investigations. The panel was asked to explore: police involvement in Daniel Morgan’s murder; whether anyone involved in the murder was protected by corrupt police officers; whether there was a subsequent failure to investigate corruption; and the incidence of connections between private investigators, police officers, the News of the World or other parts of the media. The independent panel has now completed its report. I am grateful to the panel and to Baroness Nuala O’Loan.
As Home Secretary, it was my responsibility to ensure that publishing the report was compatible with my statutory obligations in relation to human rights and national security. This was not about delay. I am pleased that no redactions were required. Daniel Morgan’s family have waited eight years for this report. It is devastating that, 34 years after he was murdered, nobody has been brought to justice.
The report sets out findings from its review of the past three decades. It is more than 1,200 pages long and in three volumes. It is right that we carefully review its findings. The report is deeply alarming: it finds that examples of corrupt behaviour were not limited to the first investigation, that the Metropolitan police made a litany of mistakes, and that that irreparably damaged the chances of a successful prosecution for Daniel Morgan’s murder. The report accuses the Metropolitan police of
“a form of institutional corruption.”
Police corruption is a betrayal of everything that policing stands for in this country. It erodes public confidence in our entire criminal justice system. It undermines democracy and civilised society. We look to the police to protect us, and so they are invested with great power. The overwhelming majority of officers use it honourably, but those who use their power for immoral ends do terrible harm, as do those who indulge, cover up or ignore police corruption. This is one of the most devastating episodes in the history of the Metropolitan police.
In recent years, several steps have been taken to combat police corruption. A new offence of police corruption, applicable solely to police officers, was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead in 2015, to sit alongside the existing offence of misconduct in public office. The offence carries a maximum prison sentence of fourteen years. To prevent corrupt police officers evading accountability by resigning or retiring, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 enabled the extension of disciplinary procedures to former officers. It also ensures that if an officer under investigation for  gross misconduct resigns or retires, misconduct proceedings can still take place and the officer can be barred from rejoining the police.
Last year, I overhauled the police complaints and discipline process. There is now a more efficient system for dealing with police misconduct. The investigation process is simpler and quicker, and an explanation is required if an investigation takes longer than 12 months. It is in the interests both of the police and of the public that corrupt police officers are exposed and innocent officers exonerated as swiftly as possible.
The Group of States against Corruption monitors countries’ compliance with the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption standards. This month, it published a report demonstrating good progress in the UK’s law enforcement to prevent corruption. But we cannot ignore the findings of this report. Its recommendations are wide-ranging and far-reaching across aspects of policing, conduct, culture and transparency in public institutions. Today, I have written to Dame Cressida Dick to ask her to provide me with a detailed response to the panel’s recommendations for the Metropolitan police and the wider issues outlined in the report. This afternoon, I will also ask Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to consider how best it can look into the issues raised.
The police are operationally independent, and the Metropolitan police are held to account by the Mayor of London and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, but the police are accountable to Parliament through me. I intend to return to the House to update on progress made on this and other recommendations in the report once I have received responses from the Metropolitan police and others.
There can be no confidence in the integrity of policing without confidence in the police watchdog. The Independent Office for Police Conduct has made good progress since it was formed in 2018, but questions remain about its ability to hold the police to account. In particular, profound concerns exist about the handling of the IOPC’s investigation into Operation Midland. The issues raised by the Daniel Morgan independent panel further reinforce the need for a strong police watchdog. I am therefore announcing today that I am bringing forward the next periodic review of the IOPC to start this summer. This will include an assessment of the IOPC’s effectiveness and efficiency.
Daniel Morgan deserved far, far better than this, as did his family. To them, on what will be a very, very difficult day, I say that the whole House will have them and Daniel in our thoughts. I commend this statement to the House.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. I should say that a member of Daniel Morgan’s family is a constituent of mine, and my thoughts are with them today.
The publication of the report should never have taken this long. It is 34 years since Daniel Morgan’s horrific murder, with four major police investigations, a collapsed trial, an inquest. The independent panel was set up by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in 2013, yet the family has had to wait a further eight years since then.
The findings in the report are damning and they go to the very heart of our policing, criminal justice system and media. The challenge to the Government today is what will now be done to ensure that something like this can never happen again. Paragraph 60 of the report is incredibly serious. It states:
“The family of Daniel Morgan suffered grievously as a consequence of the failure to bring his murderer(s) to justice, the unwarranted assurances which they were given, the misinformation which was put into the public domain, and the denial of the failings in investigation, including failing to acknowledge professional incompetence, individuals’ venal behaviour, and managerial and organisational failures. The Metropolitan Police also repeatedly failed to take a fresh, thorough and critical look at past failings. Concealing or denying failings, for the sake of the organisation’s public image, is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit and constitutes a form of institutional corruption.”
The report also states that:
“the Panel has proposed the creation of a statutory duty of candour, to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve”.
That is a vital reform and it is particularly urgent, as there will be another inquiry soon into the covid pandemic, so can the Home Secretary confirm that that recommendation will be implemented?
I stand here today as a Member of Parliament for a mining constituency and a supporter of Liverpool football club, looking, in addition to Orgreave and Hillsborough, at yet another terrible episode from the 1980s that raises profound questions about policing in that period. On the link between police and journalists, does the Home Secretary not accept that the Government, over the past 11 years, have had the opportunity not only to investigate that link, but to make reforms and they have failed to do so?
The Home Secretary will also be aware of the serious criticisms made by the panel about its ability to do its work over the past eight years and its difficulty in securing timely access to evidence. She will further be aware of the criticism of the Home Office, on page 1,138 of the report, that the point of contact for the panel was helpful, but that dealing with
“the Home Office as a department”
was “more challenging”. Can the Home Secretary set out how she proposes to address that within the Home Office?
The Home Secretary also mentioned bringing forward the next periodic review of the IOPC. It is right that strong powers for our police are matched by strong safeguards, so can she confirm when she expects that review to be completed? The Home Secretary also mentioned returning to the House once she has a response from the Metropolitan police. Does she expect this to be before the summer recess?
Finally, does the Home Secretary agree that we will be failing the family and, indeed, all victims if we do not do all that is required to prevent other families going through the three-decade nightmare that has been the experience of the Morgan family?

Priti Patel: Let me begin my remarks in response to the right hon. Gentleman by extending my continued sympathy to Daniel Morgan’s family at what is a difficult time and by really paying tribute to their own tenacity in seeking answers to their questions about Daniel’s tragic murder.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of valid points regarding police conduct and the report, in terms of the time that it has taken and the whole issue of duty of candour. He speaks about this point, around public servants, in particular, giving evidence in hearings, investigations and public inquiries, very much in terms of the honesty and the approach that they take to bring justice to families, in particular. On that point, it is important to recognise—the right hon. Gentleman has spoken about this in relation to the potential covid inquiry that has been announced—that work is taking place across Government on how those wider issues will be addressed, but, at the same time, there is absolutely no justification for delay. Eight years it has taken for this report—far too long—and there will be many reasons, but importantly, lessons have to be learned from that.
In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s specific points about policing, the Metropolitan police and the report, I have today written to the commissioner to seek her response to the findings of the actual report. Alongside that, I will maintain that I will return to the House. At this stage, I cannot tell him when that will be, but I will endeavour, post the discussions this afternoon—I have also mentioned the inspectorate and having a review, effectively—to bring the updates to this House so that he and all Members of this House are kept fully informed of the next stages and our collective response to the recommendations that the panel have made.

Theresa May: Like, I am sure, all Members of the House, my thoughts are with Daniel Morgan’s family today.
At the heart of this damning, thorough report is yet another example of an organ of the state, the job of which was to protect the public, having prioritised the reputation of the institution over the delivery of justice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of police officers act with integrity and an overriding sense of public duty, but that where corruption does occur it must be rooted out with vigour, unlike what happened throughout this episode and the investigation to find the killer of Daniel Morgan? As the independent panel has said, every corrupt activity must be identified and dealt with on every occasion.

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and her tribute to Daniel Morgan. I also pay tribute to her for her work with regard to policing and corruption in policing. I agree wholeheartedly that the majority of our frontline police officers are incredible public servants—they honour and respect their roles and absolutely serve the frontline with care and professionalism—but she is right to highlight and make the case strongly that where there is corruption there can be no hiding, institutionally or in respect of inquiries, panels or anything of that nature. It has to be right that as I have outlined this afternoon, our role, collectively as a Government and as the Home Office, is not just to follow up but to get the answers that are required and ensure that police conduct is held to account so that we can bring an end to the corruption of policing in the way we have seen.

Stuart McDonald: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. No family should have had to endure what Daniel Morgan’s family have had to endure—the  loss and distress compounded by institutional corruption, delay and injustice. As the Home Secretary says, we all have them in our thoughts. But we must also do more. We all hope that the devastating report from the independent panel—we are grateful for its work—helps to provide some answers and signposts as to what should happen next. Will the Home Secretary meet the family to discuss the findings of the report and the recommendations of the panel?
The Home Secretary has highlighted the fact that the findings and recommendations are wide-ranging, far-reaching and stretch over three volumes; my simple request, which I think is one of the most important, is that the Government make time to allow Parliament to debate the report and its implications in full. The offer of updates is good and welcome, but a report of this significance must surely have a full parliamentary debate.
I note that there is a whole chapter in the report on the challenges of securing co-operation. Does that provide the explanation for why it took eight years for the panel to complete its work? Was some of the delay caused by difficulties in persuading the Metropolitan police and others to provide the documents and files requested by the inquiry? If that is the case, is that not all the more reason for a judge-led inquiry along the lines of Leveson 2? To what extent was the panel able to seek evidence from media organisations? Given the panel’s lack of powers in that respect, is that not also all the more reason for such a judge-led inquiry?
Nothing has yet been said this morning about the standards and conduct of media organisations and the implications of the report for that industry, so will the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport also make a statement about the implications for that industry of what the report says about this dreadful episode?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the way in which he has articulated them today. He has highlighted a number of important points, including the delay of eight years—eight years of painful work by the panel, but essential work, no question, on pulling together the component parts of the report. It is detailed, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members with an interest to spend some time reading it.
On a future debate, the hon. Gentleman can make the usual approach through the House for a debate. As I have highlighted, there are a number of recommendations, and I am taking some immediate actions this afternoon not just to follow up but to pursue further lines of investigation and accountability to hold the Metropolitan police to account.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Leveson. He will know well that significant reforms following part 1 of the Leveson inquiry put forward a number of recommendations concerning the police and the media. This included introducing strong rules to ensure accountability and transparency, and those changes led to the introduction of the code of ethics. The Government formally consulted Sir Brian on whether to proceed with part 2 and decided that it was no longer appropriate, proportionate or in the public interest to proceed, given the potential costs and the amount of time that had been spent on part 1. My final comment to the hon. Gentleman is to say that I would be happy to meet the family in the way that he outlined, should that be of some support to them.

Bob Blackman: The overwhelming majority of serving police officers will be devastated by the publication of this report and by the besmirching of their conduct in carrying out the duties they fulfil. Obviously, our thoughts are with the family and friends of the victim, who have suffered over the years, and I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring that the report and the recommendations are delivered in full. Will she undertake to come back to the House and give MPs the opportunity to question how closely the recommendations have been implemented by all the various institutions that will need to implement them, so that public trust can be restored?

Priti Patel: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The majority of our police officers will be devastated by the report and the implications for policing. The report is devastating in many ways. Our frontline police officers whom we meet every single day are incredible public servants who put the safety of our citizens and our country front and centre of their conduct every day. It is worth reminding the House that these are men and women who often run into danger to keep us safe and to protect us. My hon. Friend is right to say that I will return to the House with an update after looking at the recommendations, but equally importantly, this is about how we hold institutions of the state to account in order to stamp out some of the corrosive practices that have been outlined in the three volumes of this independent panel’s report. That is something that we are determined to do.

Yvette Cooper: This is a deeply damning and disturbing report, and all of us will need to consider its findings and recommendations. I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to come back with a further response and proposals. The corruption has led in this case to a lack of justice for Daniel Morgan and his family, and it undermines the valued work of so many police officers with integrity across the country. However, this has come to light only because of the determination of the family and the persistence of the independent panel. Most troubling of all is the failure of senior police leadership and of policing institutions to uncover what happened and the scale of the problem over so many years. Can the Home Secretary tell the House why she thinks there has been this failure to uncover that over so many years, and whether she will come forward with specific proposals on the duty of candour that has been recommended by the independent panel?

Priti Patel: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. It is important that we spend some time considering the full report and its recommendations. Given that it has taken eight years to be published, we need to spend a great deal of time understanding the processes and why there was such slowness in sharing information, papers and evidence bases. That is why it is important that I hold the commissioner to account and ask the right questions, as I will do this afternoon. As I have said, it is important that, first of all, we seek answers to many outstanding questions, and that we question and find out what has happened in policing conduct over three decades.
On the right hon. Lady’s point about duty of candour, there is absolutely more to do here. When we look at accountability, institutions of the state and public conduct,  we cannot shy away from asking some difficult questions, and reforming how we work and how our institutions are publicly held to account.

Wendy Chamberlain: Like other hon. Members, my thoughts are with the Morgan family on this most difficult of days. As a former police officer, I am saddened, but sadly not surprised, by the findings of the report in relation to police corruption; the minority behaviours tarnish the work of so many brave serving police officers. I note the Home Secretary’s intended actions in relation to the Metropolitan police and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, but I reiterate the shadow Home Secretary’s call for clarity on the expected timescales for this work, and also on the expectations on the Metropolitan police in relation to active ongoing complaints linked to the Morgan case. The Morgan family have waited 34 years. How long must they wait to see real meaningful change?

Priti Patel: I respect and acknowledge the hon. Lady’s points. She is right to highlight timeframes, bearing in mind the painful period of time that the Morgan family have had to wait for the publication of this report. I can, at this stage, reiterate the comment that I made earlier, which is that I will come back to the House at the earliest opportunity with the information. That is absolutely right, and it is also important for the family that that information is shared with them, and that we learn the lessons associated with this independent report.

Sarah Jones: Daniel Morgan junior, Daniel Morgan’s son, lives in my constituency. The Morgan family have been waiting 34 years since Daniel Morgan’s death to see any kind of justice. Will the Home Secretary acknowledge the criticism of the Home Office in this report? I have been in touch with the family since they have had a chance to look at the report following its publication, and they are looking to the Home Secretary to implement its the key findings, particularly on the statutory duty of candour. If the Home Secretary is unable to support that today, is she at least able to guarantee that she will come back before the summer recess with a response?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and her comments. I recognise that Daniel Morgan junior lives in her constituency and understand what a difficult time this is for the Morgan family.
First of all, there is criticism of the Home Office in this report, and it is important to acknowledge that, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) highlighted earlier. For the record, I was not privy to discussions that took place prior to publication between officials in the Home Office and the panel itself. My responsibility was very much to ensure the publication of this report and that, in doing so, my statutory duties were met.
Like many right hon. and hon. Members in the House, the hon. Lady asked me about the duty of  candour. I state again that we will look at this across Government, because this is relevant not just to this particular inquiry but to future inquiries, for example on covid, and to how the state and the institutions of the state are held to account.

Ellie Reeves: I was six years old, and remember it well, when Daniel Morgan was murdered round the corner from where I lived in Sydenham—the area that I now represent in Parliament. His brutal murder shocked the local community, and the fact that no one has ever been brought to justice has only intensified that. Today, all our thoughts are with Daniel’s family, but they have suffered unimaginable and unnecessary delay. Will the Secretary of State commit today to implementing the panel’s recommendation that, in future, any panel has timely access to the material required to do its work so that this delay never happens again?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady makes one of the most important points about delay and access to information in terms of bringing the report together. It is absolutely right that we spend time looking at the recommendations. As I have already said to all colleagues, I will come back to the House and provide updates on the work that has been commissioned and on the recommendations as well.

Barry Sheerman: The Home Secretary might not know, but my long-term interest in this case comes from a campaigning Welsh lawyer, Glyn Maddocks, who brought it to my attention and I have followed it actively for many years. Indeed, the case eventually led to the formation of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. But the Home Secretary will know that this is not just a one-off. There was systemic corruption in part of the Metropolitan police at the time. Had it not been for Alastair, the brother of the deceased, and their mum, who sadly passed away before this report could be delivered, continuing to campaign over these many years, we would not have got the report at all. Does the Home Secretary agree that this was systemic and the answer has to be system change? I am encouraged by some of her remarks when she addressed this issue. In particular—let us be fair—there were deficiencies in Home Office ministerial teams of both parties.

Priti Patel: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work with the all-party parliamentary group. He is absolutely right to recognise and acknowledge that this is a tragedy in every sense. We all pay tribute to the tenacity of the Morgan family. In terms of institutional issues—the systemic issues that he referred to—we have to prevent these from occurring again. That is why some of the long-term changes that I have touched on still require further investigation in terms of the accountability of institutions of the state. Because that of work, which is absolutely essential and required, including a full review of the recommendations in these three volumes, I am committed to coming back to the House to update it on all actions taken.

Point of Order

Preet Kaur Gill: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would appreciate your guidance. A report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact has found that there were value-for-money risks with the way that the Government cut the aid budget last year. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Government have cut the aid budget but have steadfastly refused to allow this House to properly scrutinise the cuts. They have also refused to answer questions about bilateral official development assistance to different countries, claiming that the aid budget has been allocated in accordance with the UK’s strategic priorities. We have seen today that they continue to refuse to give detail about where these cuts will fall. Many of them are already falling on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, with cuts to the Rohingya of 40%, and to Yemen. But the Government have admitted that no impact assessments have been undertaken.
To improve policy making and ensure that the Government deliver for the British public, Parliament performs a vital role in our democracy by examining and challenging the work of the Government. Can  you assist, Mr Speaker, in ensuring that Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers detail which cuts to country budgets and programmes have already happened, where they think future cuts for this year are planned, and what is the projected impact on the world’s poorest people?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of the point of order. The issue was raised at FCDO questions earlier. I do not want to prolong those questions now, and the hon. Member has quite rightly put the point on the record. I am sure that the Table Office will be able to advise if she wishes to pursue these issues; I am sure that she will do so and not let the matter end here.
I now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Opposition Day - [2nd Allotted Day]Opposition Day

Catch-up Premium

Bridget Phillipson: I beg to move,
That the following papers be provided by HM Treasury to the Public Accounts Committee: all papers, correspondence and advice including emails and text messages, from 3 February 2021 up to and including 2 June 2021, to and between Treasury Ministers, senior officials and Special Advisers relating to consideration of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the proposals made by the then Education Recovery Commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, in particular such correspondence relating to the evaluation of the draft report which he produced and submitted to Government on the investment and services needed to ensure children’s education recovers from the impact of the covid-19 outbreak on their learning and development, a copy of that report, and all copies of minutes and papers relating to decisions taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Treasury Ministers, in respect of that report.
The last 15 months has been a period unlike any other in our recent history, but for our children it has been more than that. Before I go any further, however, I want to place on record the thanks of all Labour Members to all school staff, who have themselves had a harrowing, difficult and stressful year. As well as their resilience, I have admired again and again their continuing focus on the children with whom they work.
Those children have seen not merely a disruption and interruption to their lives, but a disruption of their education and development that risks setting back a generation, damaging their lives and life chances and our economy as a whole. No child should be left behind as a result of the pandemic; I hope every Member of the House agrees on that—in fact, the Prime Minister himself has said as much.
The creation of the post of education recovery commissioner in February was therefore welcome, as was the appointment of Sir Kevan Collins. Sir Kevan is a prominent figure in education and widely respected across this House. He is someone whose expertise and recommendations deserve to be taken immensely seriously, yet less than a fortnight ago Sir Kevan resigned. Why? Because the Government cut the scale of his proposed plan by 90%. In Sir Kevan’s own words:
“A half-hearted approach risks failing hundreds of thousands of pupils. The support announced so far does not come close to meeting the scale of the challenge and is why I have no option but to resign.”
By any standards, that is an extraordinary turn of events. How did it happen? How did we get here? How could the Government handle this so extraordinarily badly? The answer, as so often, is that it would appear to lie with the real decision maker in the Government. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place today, but it is the Cabinet’s answer to Macavity—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who has questions to answer in the Chamber. It is the Treasury that took the shameful decision to block a proper plan for our children’s future. The Minister knows it; we all know it. Comprehensive plans for the recovery of our children’s education were developed and circulated in government, but they were stopped in their tracks by the Treasury.
Perhaps that is not right; perhaps the Government will feel able to disclose the correspondence that we are seeking today to have published, but the sheer gravity of the issue—the lives of a generation and the strength of our future economy—means that it is crucial that we understand the Treasury’s position. That is what today’s motion seeks to enable all Members of the House to do.
Labour fully recognises that it is the responsibility of the Treasury to cast an eye— sometimes a sceptical eye—over all spending plans, securing value for money for public spending, ensuring that money is spent both effectively and efficiently. It will be at the heart of spending decisions under a Labour Government. Reasoned decisions about how to spend money must, however, mean, as schoolchildren are often told, that the Chancellor shows us his working-out. An unthinking aversion to using public money to achieve public good is not a virtue—it is a misguided dogma from which this country has spent a decade suffering the consequences and which today puts at risk the education of a generation.
Sometimes only Government can achieve the change that we need and fix the problems that we face. Failure to invest in those circumstances is a false economy on a national scale. The House does not need take my word for it. Earlier this year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggested that pupils who have lost six months of normal schooling could lose approximately £40,000 in income over their lifetime. That adds up to £350 billion in lost lifetime earnings across the 8.7 million schoolchildren in the UK. Lost earnings of £350 billion means about £100 billion less tax revenue to invest in building a strong and resilient economy and society of the future; £100 billion simply dwarves the costings that Sir Kevan prepared for his full programme.
The recovery of learning after the pandemic is a vast challenge, but it is undoubtedly in the interests of both our children and our country. We all know that the value and importance of education are not simply about lessons. School is not merely where we learn about Henry VIII and the solutions to quadratic equations; it is where, in every year, we learn the skills that set us up for life: questioning, leading, communicating; the value of friendship and discussion, and of criticism and disagreement without rancour. When children first go to school they are learning how to play, how to make friends, how to make their way in the world, and how to develop as independent individuals. Missing that opportunity has repercussions throughout their rest of their lives.
Nursery closures mean that children are falling behind. Their transition to primary school will be harder and their long-term success lesser. During the pandemic, children of primary age should have been learning the building blocks of maths, reading and writing that will set them up for life, yet by the end of the pandemic tens of thousands of primary-school children were estimated by the Government to be behind on basic literacy and unable to read or write when starting secondary school. By the end of the second national lockdown, pupils were estimated to have lost two to five months of learning, with particularly severe effects on maths skills. Secondary-school children are young people choosing the course of their lives: the college they will attend; the apprenticeship they will begin; the skills they will develop; the university they might go to.
I want to mention briefly the impact that the necessary restrictions of the pandemic and school closures have had on children in my city of Sunderland. Children have paid a price: a price on their health, with exercise and activity less common and obesity a greater threat; a price on their development of speech and language, as they have been less able to learn from each other and are slipping behind; a price on their reading, with the ability to learn through phonics understandably impaired by the constraints of distance learning; a price on their family relationships, with the confinement of families exacerbating tensions and leading to rising referrals to children’s social care; and a price on the hope and optimism about their future that should fill young people, with exams cancelled and uncertainty about their qualifications and job prospects.
The price that children have paid is not unique to my city. Each one of us has seen the damage—social, emotional and academic—to children in every one of our constituencies. But we know that the disruption has hit some children much harder, particularly those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and those living in areas with the longest lockdowns. Unless we address that issue, those effects will ripple through the lives of individuals and through wider society. They will exacerbate inequalities among families and generations, weakening us as individuals and as a society.
A generation who missed out on their education and who were not given the support they needed to catch up would be a generation betrayed. That would have consequences—not just for them, but for us all. It would mean fewer people with skills entering our workforce over that next generation. It would mean the workforce as a whole deskilling over time, and that would mean a drop in the output and productivity of our economy.
Skills and education are at the heart of Labour’s vision for the economy and society of the future. The society that we want to see is one where people never stop learning and developing their skills, talents and abilities, and where reskilling for working-age people is as natural as sending our children to school. For us, ensuring the recovery of children’s learning from the pandemic today is crucial to assuring Britain’s success tomorrow—success for individuals, but also success for every community and every corner of our country.
The argument that we make to the Treasury and to the Minister is that Government action at scale can—and must—be effective. If we get it right, we will pay a smaller price now than a much greater price over the many decades ahead, and that price could be huge. Estimates of the total cost of the disruption to education based on individual impacts have ranged from £80 billion to £160 billion. Estimates based on the systemic effect on our economy, looking at the relationship between schooling and growth, suggest figures of more than £1 trillion.
What we do know from the limited past examples of disastrous interruptions to children’s education is that the damage can be real, but it can be fixed. We know it is real, because chronic industrial unrest in Argentina’s education system over many years caused repeated school closures. Women affected by those closures who were at school at the time have seen their lifetime earnings fall by 1.7% as a result. For men, the amount is nearly double that.
We also know that the damage can be fixed—that the price our children have paid is not one they need to pay all their lives long. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans. Most children were out of school for one to three months, yet subsequent intervention was not merely swift and sustained; it was effective. Four years after that disaster, affected children had caught up on lost learning by about two months. Not only that, but the gains were concentrated in the children whose initial performance after the disaster was worst. The lesson we draw from that example is that intervention is not only an option, it is the right option.
The motion before us seeks to understand why the Treasury has been so opposed to the sort of intervention we need and the sort of future our children deserve. What we need, and what Sir Kevan’s work rightly lays out, is a long-term, funded plan that is evidence-based, scalable and practical, making best use of the tremendous human and physical resources that we have in this country. It must have at its heart increasing opportunities in school, increasing the value of that time, and targeted tutoring for those who need it most. Tutoring means better engagement. Improving teaching helps us to get more out of every extra hour. More time together helps children to catch up on the social and emotional aspects of their development.
I want to pick up two aspects of the plan that Sir Kevan developed for our nation’s children, which the Treasury blocked. They are about the urgency and the duration of the plan we need. The Government, and  the Treasury in particular, seem to be caught on the hop again and again. To Treasury Ministers, urgency in dealing with the challenges of public policy is too often for other people—for self-employed workers and small businesses who need to submit claims on time or get nothing, or for businesses which need to remodel their operations overnight as restrictions change with just hours to go.
The Chancellor must never be allowed to forget that his refusal last autumn to set out clear and workable plans until businesses had only hours before deadlines meant thousands of workers either losing their jobs or living in fear of doing so. He has shown again and again that he will not get ahead of the problem—that he prefers to wait and hope it goes away. Our children’s future is not an issue that is going away, and it is high time that the Government faced up to that.
It has been apparent since the day that schools were first closed to most children that they would not reopen for many weeks at least and that one day action would be needed to address the consequences. Each week without action is another step towards lasting damage to the opportunities of hundreds of thousands of children. Waiting until the spending review means that more than 300,000 more children and young adults will have left the school system altogether before a proper plan and proper steps are in place.
The second major point is that schools need to start making decisions now about resources and staffing to deliver over not just a few months, but many years. Long-term outcomes are better delivered when they can be planned on a longer-term basis—more than one financial year at a time. That is, after all, the reason the Government have multi-year spending reviews in the first place. Sharply increased spend should come with proper accountability, which is why Labour has set out  clear proposals for increased and improved mechanisms to get the best value out of every pound of public money spent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), the shadow Secretary of State for Education, has set out Labour’s comprehensive alternative to what the Government have proposed, because, like Sir Kevan, Labour grasps the scale of the problem and the need for the Government to rise to the challenge. Our plan would see breakfast clubs, new activities for every child and a fully funded expanded range of extracurricular clubs and activities. Our plan would see quality mental health support in every school, giving every child the support they need. Our plan would see small group tutoring for all who need it, not just 1%, by reforming the Government’s failing tutoring programme to ensure that no child falls behind because of pandemic disruption.
Our plan would see continued development for teachers, who have had one of the toughest years of their careers. Our plan would see an education recovery premium supporting every child by investing in children who have faced the greatest disruption during the pandemic, from early years to further education, delivering vital additional support for children who need it the most. Our plan would ensure that no child goes hungry by extending free school meals over the holidays.

Robert Halfon: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Given that she has been talking about the plans of Kevan Collins, and given that a core part of his proposal was to have a formal longer school day, which the shadow Education Secretary said in the media last week was not something she agreed with, does the hon. Lady agree that there should be a longer school day as part of Sir Kevan Collins’ plans?

Bridget Phillipson: I am always keen to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee, who I know cares very deeply and passionately about these issues. What I would say in response is that, rather than disagreeing over the nature of that additional time, why do we not focus on trying to get the right outcome for all our children in this country? The block to that rests with the Treasury. It feels at times that we are arguing at cross-purposes. That was not the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) set out. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the situation.
We all want to make sure that children have the time they need in school to catch up on that lost time, but in addition to that, we want to make sure there are fully funded extracurricular activities as part of an extended day within the school premises, so that all children—not just those who can afford extra clubs, music, activities or book clubs; whatever it would happen to be—have access to that kind of provision. The block right now and the reason we have not got to that point, I am afraid, lies on the right hon. Gentleman’s Benches.
Last week, the Government could bring themselves neither to support nor to oppose our alternative. Perhaps today they will tell the House why the Treasury blocked the plans that the Prime Minister’s chosen adviser sought to develop, comparable in scope and scale to those of the Opposition.
Children do not vote, and their voices are rarely heard in this place, but we have a moral duty to them none the less: a duty to their future, both theirs and  ours. Labour has set out, at length and in detail, the sort of plan that we believe our country needs. The Government’s own education recovery commissioner set out, at length and in detail, the sort of plan that he believes our country needs. Today, our request is simple: that the Treasury explain to parents and families why it believes that our country does not need its own commissioner’s plan.
It is not too late for the Government to change course. What we want, what Sir Kevan wanted, what the people of this country want and what the children of our country need is a properly funded long-term plan for educational recovery. We have set one out. There is still time for the Government, even now, to rise to the challenge and deliver that brighter future that we all want to see.

Nigel Evans: As Members can see, the screens say that there is a three-minute limit, but for Alison McGovern and Robert Halfon the limit will be four minutes. It will then revert to three for the duration of the debate.

Robert Halfon: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Nigel Evans: I can see how popular that was: Robert Halfon is now having to add to his speech.

Nick Gibb: Well, here we are again. As I said last week, once again we have heard nothing from Opposition Front Benchers but
“warm words and hot indignation”,
with no serious plan, while
“the Government are getting on with the challenging job of tackling the pandemic, keeping our economy alive, supporting people’s incomes, supporting the NHS and our doctors and nurses, vaccinating the nation, and providing education and support to 8 million children and young people.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 967.]
However, once again I welcome the debate and the opportunity that it provides to set out clearly our commitment and action to ensure that no child will suffer damage to their long-term prospects because of the pandemic.
The motion’s title on the Order Paper is “Allocation of funding for the catch-up premium”. The catch-up premium—£650 million of additional funding for schools—was announced by the Prime Minister in June 2020. It provided £80 per pupil in mainstream schools, both primary and secondary, and three times that rate—£240—for each place in special schools, special units and alternative provision. Even in the early days of the pandemic, the Government knew that closing schools to most pupils would have an impact on children’s education, so alongside the action that we took to secure jobs, support the economy and back the NHS, the catch-up premium ensured that schools could respond to the challenges that children and young people faced.
At the same time, in June last year, we also announced the £350 million national tutoring programme and, with the support of the Education Endowment Foundation, evaluated and procured 33 tutoring organisations to provide one-to-one and small group tuition to disadvantaged  and other children who were in need of the kind of support that we know from the evidence is highly effective in helping children to catch up. Establishing the national tutoring programme was a major undertaking and is on track to have helped 250,000 pupils by the end of this academic year. The plans that we announced two weeks ago will extend that to up to 6 million courses of 15 hours of tutoring over the next three years.
I turn to the motion itself, which calls for
“all papers, correspondence and advice”
given to Ministers to be disclosed to the Public Accounts Committee. The Government recognise and respect the fact that this House has rights regarding the publication of any papers, but effective government also relies on some key principles, such as the need for confidential and frank discussions among Ministers, Cabinet Committees and any advisers that the Government appoint to help to improve the quality of policy making.
This is not a partisan issue. It has been the long-standing position of previous Governments, including Labour Governments, that any papers or analyses created for the Cabinet or for Ministers are, rightly, confidential. The motion fundamentally undermines that principle. Tony Blair, in his autobiography “A Journey”, in the section on the Freedom of Information Act, sets out in clear terms that
“governments, like any other organisations, need to be able to debate, discuss and decide issues with a reasonable level of confidentiality. This is not mildly important. It is of the essence. Without the confidentiality, people are inhibited and the consideration of options is limited in a way that isn’t conducive to good decision-making.”
To repeat:
“This is not mildly important. It is of the essence.”
That is why we oppose the motion tabled by the Opposition today. We believe in good government and good decision making.

Karin Smyth: I am grateful for the plug for the former Prime Minister, who made “education, education, education” a mantra. I was and remain very proud of the difference it made to kids in Bristol South. I accept the Minister’s point about confidentiality, but will address the key questions in the motion? What do the Government think is not good about Sir Kevan’s recommendations, why do the Government not think they need to be funded, and what would be the impact of that decision? If the Government do not want to disclose the documents, we would be happy if we understood what they think about not taking that action.

Nick Gibb: We did take the advice of Sir Kevan Collins, who supported our introduction of more funding for the national tutoring programme and the £400 million to improve the continuing professional development and training of teachers. We set up a review into the time element of the advice that Sir Kevan gave Ministers, which will report later this year in time to inform the spending review.
The House has a number of opportunities to scrutinise the work of the Treasury in oral questions, and the annual supply and appropriation legislation will be debated before the summer recess. There are also regular appearances by Treasury Ministers and officials before the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee.
Since the Government came into office in 2010, we have been focused on our mission of raising school standards for all pupils. Successive Prime Ministers and Education Secretaries have put in place ambitious plans to make sure that, no matter where you are born or where in the country you live, you will receive a world-class education. That is not a programme for a single term of Government; nor is it an initiative to get headlines. It is generational reform—long, steady, painstaking and difficult. We have much still to achieve, but we are making progress.
Before we came into Government in 2010, the correlation between parental wealth and pupil achievement was stubbornly entrenched. Children from poorer homes, who were already behind in their development when they started school, were falling further behind their peers. Rather than being an engine of social mobility, our school system was calcifying inequality. For Conservatives, for whom education is the gateway to opportunity, this was unacceptable.
We took bold, decisive action that was opposed all the way by the Opposition, but which has led to better schools and better life chances for young people. We overhauled Labour’s national curriculum, which was unnecessarily bureaucratic and too focused on a range of generic skills rather than rich, subject-based content, and replaced it with a new national curriculum, which provides pupils with an introduction to the essential knowledge they need to be educated citizens, immersing them in the best that has been thought and said. We took action to make sure that teachers got better training, and we introduced the pupil premium to give schools the funding they need to support disadvantaged pupils.
Our reforms are turning the tide, rebuffing the fatalistic assumptions of too many who seemed to accept that the gap between rich and poor is inevitable—the soft bigotry of low expectations, which for years was writing off pupil’s lives rather than striving to give them the education needed to influence their own destiny. Academic standards have been rising and the attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils has been closing. Thanks to our reforms, more pupils are taking core academic GCSEs, more children are reading fluently and more children are attending good and outstanding schools.
We have taken action throughout this pandemic to ensure that children are supported, but our commitment to provide a good education for every child pre-dates covid-19 reaching our shores. We produced the best schools budget settlement for many years at the 2019 spending review. Totalling £14.4 billion, that is the largest cash boost for schools in a decade.
Core school funding increased by £2.6 billion in 2020-21, and is increasing by £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion in 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively compared with 2019-20, including significant additional funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities. That unrelenting drive to give children and young people the best start in life meant that we were in a better place to handle the unprecedented challenges that the pandemic posed.
We know that the pandemic, as the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said, has disproportionately affected children, with most missing at least 115 days of school. That is precisely why we took immediate action to provide education  remotely, delivering more than 1.3 million laptops or tablets alongside wireless routers and access to free mobile data for disadvantaged families.

Christian Wakeford: Does the Minister agree that the best place for a child has always been in school, and when Opposition Members, and indeed their councils and councillors, were calling for schools not to reopen last year that did a disservice to not only the country but our children, who matter the most, and does he agree that they should apologise for that?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no substitute for pupils being in the classroom with their teachers and friends.
This month, we published a report from Renaissance Learning and the Education Policy Institute, which presented a sobering reminder of the ongoing scale of the recovery challenge. Clearly, there is much work to do and we do not shy away from it, because the Government will always do whatever it takes to support children. That is why schools were the last to close and the first to open in tackling the spread of covid, because we know that getting children back in the classroom is vital to supporting catch up.
That it is why schools have access to both a catch-up and a recovery premium to enable them to assess what will help their pupils to catch up their missed education and to make provision available to ensure that they do so. It comes on top of our £200 million investment in summer schools, which is creating the opportunity for up to 600,000 pupils to take part in educational and enrichment activities. Over 80% of eligible mainstream schools have already signed up and a £220 million investment in the expansion of the holiday activities and food programme, which will operate across England over the summer and Christmas holidays, will provide eligible children with enriching activities and nutritious food.
Owing to the swift action that we took last June, children are already benefiting from the newly established national tutoring programme, with the £1 billion announcement in June last year, a further £700 million announced in February and, two weeks ago, a further recovery package of £1.4 billion. That brings our total recovery package to more than £3 billion. The next stage of our recovery plan will include a review of time spent in school and 16-to-19 education, and the impact that that could have on helping children and young people to catch up. Schools already have the power to set the length of the school day, but there is a certain amount of disparity in approach across the sector. The findings of the review will be set out later in the year to inform the spending review.
We all know what a superb job our teachers and support staff are doing and have done throughout the crisis, supporting and continuing to educate children and young people despite all the challenges that the pandemic has caused. We owe them our gratitude. Our teachers are the single most significant in-school driver of pupil attainment, which is why we have taken steps to give them more support and access to the very best training and professional development. We are investing £400 million to help to provide 500,000 teacher training and development opportunities across the country, alongside the support for those working in early years.
Some £153 million will provide professional development for early years staff, including through new programmes that focus on key areas such as speech and language development for very young children, and £253 million will expand our new teacher development reforms to give school teachers the opportunity to access world-leading training tailored to whatever point they are at in their careers, from new teachers to leaders of school trusts. That is a significant overhaul of teacher development in this country, giving teachers and school leaders the knowledge and skills that they need to help every child to fulfil their potential.
We are determined to ensure that children and young people catch up on the education they missed as a result of the pandemic. We have announced more than £3 billion to date, and the Prime Minister has been clear that there is going to be more coming down the track. We will do what it takes. While the Opposition are chasing papers, we are getting on with the job of reforming England’s education system, empowering teachers to transform lives through a knowledge-rich and rigorous curriculum in calm, disciplined and supportive schools. We want every child to attend a great school. It is a bold, audacious ambition. We have begun the journey. We have made great progress. We have further to go. We will not give up.

Nigel Evans: The limit is four minutes for Alison McGovern and Robert Halfon, and three minutes from then on. May I ask those who are participating remotely please to have a timing device if you cannot see the one on your screens? We cannot extend it beyond the three minutes because a lot of people want to participate in this debate. Everybody else physically here of course has the timers in the Chamber.

Alison McGovern: I am very pleased to participate in this debate, which is extraordinarily important. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I did not recognise his characterisation of schools at all. In fact, I rise to disagree with almost entirely everything he said, except for the point he made at the end in paying tribute to our teachers, the children in our schools and all those who have worked hard for the future of our kids, because they have done an absolutely brilliant job over the pandemic. If I agree with him about nothing else, I agree with him about that.
I want to raise three crucial points in response to what the Minister has said, all of which are very important to those I represent in the Wirral. I am afraid that the Minister’s contribution avoided the central point and question of this debate: if everything is fine and the Government have set out a plan for our kids and their future, why did the Government’s own adviser resign? Why? Would anyone like to intervene on me, because I am at a loss to understand? Why did the Government’s own adviser resign in protest? Answer comes there none, and I think that says it all really.
The first point I want to raise is about sport. I make no apologies for doing so, because whatever the Minister says about the way the curriculum has changed, the levels of dissatisfaction about school sport in my community in Wirral and right across the country wherever I go is very high. We do not know whether the primary PE and  sport premium grant will be renewed for next year. It is only £400 million, which is about £18,000 per primary, and my understanding is that it is still being considered. Yet again, we have this dance around whether the money is going to be there for school sport, and people are hanging on to know whether or not they should set up schemes to help support young people’s physical activity. I just wish the Minister would say whether or not it is going to be renewed, so that people can get on and do that work to make sure that young people can have access to sport. In any case, there is significant scepticism about whether all of that money does get spent on sport. I would say to the Minister that he has to understand that people in this country want our kids to have a rounded experience at school, and they want them playing. I never thought I would have to tell the Tory party about the importance of competitive sport in schools. It is absolutely vital. On that, as well as on creative activities, arts and culture, there is such frustration that this is going to be run out of our schools, and it has got to change.
The second point is about employment. When our kids do not get the kind of education they need and the kind of skills they need, they then face a really tough labour market. We know that the labour force survey shows that the unemployment rate for young people is three times that of adults. Meanwhile, the Government have said that they will create 200,000 kickstart jobs by December, and if they are to do that, they need to be creating about 20,000 a month, and they are only on 7,000.
Finally, on mental health—this is the most important point—Labour’s plan includes support for mental health, and I beg the Minister to look at it. The Office for National Statistics is already telling us that depression is up, anxiety is up and young people’s feeling of belonging and comfort in society is falling rapidly. We need that mental health support in schools to make sure that this generation do not suffer forever from what they have been through, because you do not forget what happens to you when you are young. Let us stand up for our kids.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the debate, although I find it a bit mystifying that we are debating the same subject two weeks in a row. I wonder whether the decision is more about politics than policy.
As I said in the Opposition day debate last week, I firmly believe that the Government investment is a hefty starter in terms of catch-up funding. To recap, there is the £3 billion in total for extra tuition, the £220 million for the holiday activities and food programme, the £63 million for local councils to help with meals—everyone knows my views on free school meals—and supplies for struggling families, and the £79 million for young people’s mental health, and the pupil premium has increased to £2.5 billion.
We should be fair and recognise that we are investing a sizeable sum of taxpayers’ money in education, even though I will continue, obviously, to campaign for more in terms of a long-term schools plan. The Schools Minister made it very clear that recovery funding was just the beginning and not the end of the road for catch-up, and that more would be coming down the track. Anyone looking at my record will have no doubt  that I look forward to further funding, greater resources for catch-up and a longer school day, on which, as I have said, the Labour party’s position is very confusing.
I want to mention a couple of things before I conclude. First, at present, disadvantaged pupils are 18 months behind their better-off peers by the time they sit their GCSEs. We know that poorer children are less likely to attend schools with an “outstanding” Ofsted rating, and that even in schools where there are good results, the gap between free school meals students and their peers is as wide as elsewhere.
I have been working closely with Professor Lee Elliot Major, who is an adviser to the Government. In a joint article in the Telegraph, we wrote that in order to reduce that attainment gap, measures should be taken to ensure that Ofsted awards “outstanding” ratings to schools only if they can show that they are
“making efforts to attract the poorest children in their neighbourhoods”
and working to narrow the attainment gap between those disadvantaged pupils and their better-off peers. We wrote that schools should work with neighbouring schools to raise standards, and that teams of inspectors
“should include at least one headteacher who has led a school with high numbers of poorer pupils.”
Secondly, I believe that the Government must look to reform the pupil premium. It is not ring-fenced, and the Sutton Trust has reported that a third of schools use it for other things, such as fixing a leaky roof. It is not just about ring-fencing; there should be much more micro-targeting of disadvantaged groups, particularly those who suffer from long-term disadvantage.
I mentioned last week that although I am fully supportive of the catch-up fund, I am worried that it is not reaching the most disadvantaged. Figures suggest that 44% of students receiving pupil premium funding were missed. The Government must ensure that the money is targeted at the most disadvantaged, because they are the ones who have learned the least during the pandemic.
Nevertheless, I give credit where it is due: the Government have given well over £3 billion, and they have said that more is yet to come. I would rather that, instead of just having these political debates, Members on both sides of the House worked with the Government to ensure that the long-term plan for education is deep-rooted and repairs the damage from covid-19 while also addressing social injustices in education, particularly the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and the better-off.

Nigel Evans: There is now a three-minute limit. I call Barry Sheerman.

Barry Sheerman: Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. At least I have a claim to fame that not only did I teach for a living for some part of my dim and distant past, but I taught you at university.
I am participating in this debate because I was absolutely furious when I saw that Sir Kevan’s recommendations had been so watered down. He had every reason to resign. I was also very angry because Yorkshire did so badly out of even the measly amount of money that the Government are putting in. We face a national education emergency following a national health emergency, but  the Government are not bringing resources forward for this emergency; they are not doing the job properly. Those resources, and the sense of this being an emergency and fixing it for kids who will never get another chance at education, seem to be utterly lacking from the Government’s determinations.
Secondly, there is a lack of leadership. Where is the Secretary of State when we want him? Why isn’t he, in the Cabinet, really doing the job for education? Dare I say it, we need a big beast in education. I would have been happier with Ed Balls; I would even have been happier with his successor on the Conservative side, because they were both big beasts. We have not got a big beast in education. We have a run down, truncated, demoralised Department for Education, and we have education departments in local authorities that have also been run down and sidelined. The fact of the matter is that we have not got the leadership; we have not got the imagination. I am sorry, but even though the Minister was a member of the Education Committee when I chaired it, he is part of the problem: he has been there too long. He is a time-server and has lost the imagination to understand what it was like.
There is real opportunity here with the right leadership. We could co-operate across the Benches. What about having a national volunteer scheme that volunteers retired teachers and retired sportspeople? The people who care about our education would come out of the woodwork like never before and do something for kids who need that help, support and backing at this very moment.
We are lacking the essentials because this Prime Minister and this Government do not care about the education of our children in the state sector.

Nigel Evans: Thank you, Barry, and yes, you did teach me at Swansea University—and what an incredible job you did.
I call Christian Wakeford.

Christian Wakeford: Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I do not really know how to follow your former teacher, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), other than by saying that I disagree fundamentally with everything he just said.
May I put on the record my thanks to the hard-working teachers, headteachers and, more importantly, support staff in Bury South for their tireless efforts in keeping going during what has been the most difficult year they will ever have faced? One of the greatest tragedies of this pandemic is its impact on our children. Millions of young people lost months of face-to-face schooling, missing out on their education and the social interaction that is so crucial to their development. Unlike the Labour party, throughout the pandemic this Conservative Government made it our ambition to see the safe return of students to the classroom, where they belong.
I have said time and again that for me, levelling up is about education and improving the social mobility of our young people, ensuring that every child has access to good-quality education as we recover from this pandemic. That will be essential if we are to deliver on our commitment to level up Britain. That is why, as part of our long-term  education recovery plan, we have so far invested over £3 billion, focusing on high-quality tutoring and great teaching.

Ben Everitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that tutoring must be targeted at the most disadvantaged children—the children who have suffered the most during this pandemic?

Christian Wakeford: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; it is almost as if he has read my speech already.
I also want to pay tribute to the fantastic work that the Tutor Trust has been doing—especially considering that it is based in my constituency—in getting graduates out there and teaching the subjects they specialise in. That is what we need to focus on, and may I make a subtle plug to the Minister and ask him to meet me and the Tutor Trust to see what more we can do in future years? On the topic of tutoring, education is at the  heart of our ambition to level up and make sure that all children, whatever their background, have a world- class education that sets them up for a happy and successful life.
I know from speaking to headteachers at St Monica’s and Parrenthorn in Prestwich and my work on the Select Committee on Education that more needs to be done to help disadvantaged students, who have been hit hardest by this pandemic, so I welcome the fact that the Government have listened and are taking action to make up for lost time in the classroom by committing £1 billion to the national tutoring programme. That will deliver 6 million 15-hour tutoring courses for disadvantaged students, targeting key subjects, including maths and English.
When Labour was last trusted with education, we fell down the international league table for school performance, which meant that pupils were not receiving the education they deserved. Between 2000 and 2009, England fell from seventh to 25th in reading and from eighth to 28th in maths. We will take no lectures from Labour Members who have spent the past year equivocating on whether students should even be back in the classroom—not forgetting the decline in school performance when they were most recently trusted with children’s education.
Furthermore, Labour has been proven to care about education when it is politically expedient, with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), having had to apologise for describing the pandemic as a “good crisis” out of which Labour could create a political opportunity. Such behaviour by Labour is opportunism of the worst kind. When we had a real chance to debate education spending in last year’s estimates day debate, not a single Labour Member other than the shadow Secretary of State spoke.
Lastly, as we deliver on our promise to level up education, we are investing record amounts in schools, including by giving every pupil a funding boost through our £14.4 billion investment. Will the Minister assure me that the money we are investing will provide schools in my constituency with the funding they need to support the students who are most in need?

Seema Malhotra: I pay tribute to our teachers and children for the sacrifices that they have made during the pandemic.
I am proud that Labour has set out proposals for a children’s recovery plan to invest in opportunities for every child to play, learn and develop. Young people have lost out on education, sport, friendship and simply being young. They have missed more than half a year of in-person schooling. I struggle to see how the Government can even begin to imagine how less than half an hour of tutoring a fortnight can make up for such a loss of education.
The Collins report calls for an investment of £15 billion—or £700 per pupil—over three years to support children’s recovery, so why have the Government announced only a 10th of what the widely respected Sirusb Kevan said is needed? Breakfast clubs, new activities for every child, quality mental health support, small-group tutoring for all who need it and continued development for teachers, along with making sure that no child goes hungry—all elements of Labour’s plan—are needed throughout the country.
The impact on children is being much more widely felt, with grassroots football clubs such as Bedfont Eagles telling me how their coaches are picking up the pieces, supporting children who come back to play football and other activities for the first time, having lost confidence. Last week, I heard of a 15-year-old girl who has not been downstairs and hardly left her bedroom for almost a year because of fear and anxiety resulting from mental health conditions exacerbated during the pandemic. She, her friends and others need a plan for their personal and educational recovery, so that they are not affected for the long term.
Sport is vital to our young people’s wellbeing and health. The Schools Active Movement has conducted research, with the participation of more than 10% of schools throughout the country. The movement is concerned that there is still no plan from the DFE for a primary sports premium next year, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). I understand that the Government have not confirmed funding for school games organisers beyond October. The data from the research is horrific: 84% of PE teachers say that physical fitness is worse—indeed, in Feltham and Heston the proportion is 97%.
We must continue to tackle the digital divide. In Hounslow, months before a single laptop from the Government appeared, we came together as a community to help to donate laptops for the children who needed them but did not have a device at home on which to study. There is still no proper long-term, affordable schools connectivity plan to give pupils and teachers the ability to address the issue. Children need a Government who are on their side now and for their future. We need to go beyond mere words. With just a few short weeks till the end of school term, decisions need to be taken now and plans put into action. Schools need clarity on funding, and they need it now.

Julie Marson: I pay tribute to the headteachers, teachers, support staff and, indeed, all the students in Hertford and Stortford  who have worked so hard to ensure that they miss out on as little education as they possibly can. They have all done a sterling job.
In many ways, my whole life has been defined by an awareness of the impacts of lost education. My parents are both clever people. They were working-class people brought up in the east end of London. They lost out on their education due to an even bigger catastrophe than covid—war, evacuation and the blitz. Their experience and knowledge of what they had lost out on, and the impact of that on their lives, made them absolutely believe in the power of education and absolutely determined that my brother and I would engage in our education to the very best of our abilities.
So am I concerned about how we react to the impact of the pandemic on children? Yes. Do I welcome the actions of the Government? Yes. I welcome the investment of £3 billion so far, on top of a record boost in education funding of £14.4 billion. I also welcome the focus on quality teaching and tutoring, which the Minister set out. I also absolutely welcome the fact that it is evidence-led.
The Labour party might not be concerned about the economy and taxpayers’ money, but I know our Government, our Treasury and our Chancellor are. The evidence that the Government have marshalled, that just one course of high-quality tutoring can boost attainment by three to five months, is enormous and fact-based. Targeting that hugely valuable resource at disadvantaged students is also highly pragmatic and fact-based.
Extending the school day could have a huge impact on heads, teachers and teaching assistants, and on children and their families. The options around those things should definitely be looked at, with proper evaluation of the implications and costs, so it is right for the Government to approach that with a thorough review. That is the intelligent, pragmatic and sensible approach.
A long time ago, my parents turned away from a party, the Labour party, which did not understand the aspirations of working people, their desires and the importance of education, and they are not likely to go back any time soon.

Ian Lavery: The pandemic has only exacerbated the inequalities in the education system. Huge praise goes to the teaching profession and everyone else who has worked their socks off during these very dark times—absolutely outstanding.
The catch-up funding plans proposed by Sir Kevan Collins suggest that a £15 billion package was required. The Government offer is 10% of that—that is an insult, man. Make no mistake about it, the students, especially the most disadvantaged, are set to suffer again. Crumbs from the table does not adequately describe the situation that we face.
The revealing, alarming regional education disparities highlight the effect of the pandemic. Reportedly, learning losses are huge. Again, they are much higher for disadvantaged pupils from poorer backgrounds. That is why adequate funding is essential. The Government have already robbed millions from schools in the north-east, with their changes to the pupil premium funding. It is estimated that schools could lose up to £7.26 million as a result of the Department’s fiddling of the dates.
In my constituency, 19% of pupils received at least two As and a B at A-level. That is compared with 14% as an average across England. Despite that, only 28% of the pupils attended secondary schools rated good or outstanding, compared with a huge 80% across England as a whole; and 26% attended secondary schools deemed inadequate, compared with only 6% across the country.
I am really proud of the pupils here. They are incredibly smart and talented, yet the schools lack the required funding. I wonder: does the Prime Minister think that the parents in my constituency should work harder to pay for private tuition to fill the gaps, as he suggested only the other day?
We need breakfast clubs and extracurricular activities. The students need quality mental health support to transition back into school life. We need manageable class sizes. We need to ensure that no child is going hungry throughout the school day. Those are all things that only the Labour party has to offer.
We have to ask: what have the Government got against our children? Why did the education recovery commissioner feel the need to abandon the educational ship? Maybe he saw the system heading for the rocks.
Let’s get on with it.

David Johnston: There are a few curious things about this motion. One is that we debated the same subject just last week; we have had the G7 and the delay to step 4 of lockdown, but we are talking about the same thing. However, it is important, so I do not mind. The other curious thing about it is that we have been told for quite a long time now that Labour Members support Sir Kevan Collins’s plan, except in the motion they ask for a copy of the plan, which shows that they do not know the detail of the plan but are telling us that they support it anyway.
It is tempting, because it is the same subject area, to give the same speech that I gave last week, but I will not do that. Instead, I will just summarise it. I paid tribute to teachers nationwide for the role they have played during covid. I said that I supported the Government’s £3 billion investment so far in catch up. I said that I am a supporter of the extended school day—actually, probably for longer than half an hour a day—but I would like to see the evidence on that and it will cost money. I also reminded the House that, although Labour Members are very noisy when it comes to calling for more money, they are silent when their allies at the National Education Union put obstacle after obstacle in the way of children returning during the pandemic.
I have read Labour’s so-called plan and what is striking is how much of it the Government are already doing: more money into mental health—the Government are doing that; more money into tutoring—the Government are doing that; more money into teacher training—the Government are doing that. There are differences, but there are also omissions, such as where the money would come from and how Labour would evaluate its success.
Today’s motion says that the Opposition would like to see “emails and text messages”, and correspondence between Ministers, their officials and their advisers. It is hard to know how many children would catch up as a  result of that release. I happen to believe that people should be able to give candid advice privately and that it should stay private.
If I did not believe that, though, I would like to see some correspondence between shadow Ministers and their advisers, because I would like to understand: why it took them so long to say that schools were safe; why they can never criticise their friends at the NEU; why they said we should go against the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and not vaccinate by age, but pick just teachers—no other professions, such as retail workers or anybody else—to vaccinate because the unions said that we should do so; and why they still cannot say whether they support a permanent extension to the school day. I would like to understand whether the party that 18 months ago told the country that we should abolish Ofsted, abolish SATs and abolish academies, when we know how much they have helped disadvantaged children, will stand with us in defending exams, league tables and inspections for the role that they play. But because I believe that private advice should stay private on both sides, Labour will be spared that embarrassment.

Siobhain McDonagh: It is impossible not to be angry in this debate. The resignation of Sir Kevan Collins is a damning indictment of the Government’s so-called catch-up plan. Let us be absolutely clear: the measly crumbs of support on offer will let down an entire generation of young people and, on this Government’s watch, the pandemic’s impact on their education will be lifelong.
While the Government kick the catch-up can down the road, the impact is being felt right now. More than 200,000 pupils will move from primary to secondary school this autumn without being able to read properly—a monumental increase on previous years and a problem that a sticking plaster would not even begin to solve. We already know that, if pupils start secondary behind, they stay behind. Does the Minister understand why parents and teachers across the country are so furious that their children are getting less than 10% of the investment that the Government’s own education recovery commissioner called for? The temerity of the Treasury to challenge Sir Kevan’s ideas undermines a lifetime spent improving outcomes for children.
Meanwhile, one conservative estimate puts the long-term economic cost of lost learning in England at £100 billion. Last week, the Prime Minister labelled one-to-one tutoring as a catch-up tool for hard-working parents. I wonder whether the Minister can tell him about 10-year-old Abi in my constituency. In lockdown, she secured entry to Tiffin Girls’ School, one of the most prestigious grammar schools in the country, working in a cramped homeless hostel, with only a refurbished phone donated by Tesco Mobile to get connected. Social mobility, levelling up, call it whatever you want: the impact will be lifelong.
There are legions of hard-working parents who cannot afford tuition, but who can see their child slipping behind. A lady came to see me because the bailiffs were coming. Instead of paying her council tax, she paid for a tutor so that her son would catch up and achieve the 11-plus. Of course, I do not support her council tax  decision, but I absolutely recognise that she is desperately trying to plug the support gap that the Government are failing to fill.
We need a catch-up plan for every child who has fallen behind—extending the school day for education curricular activities; breakfast clubs; small group and one-to-one tutoring—and to close the digital divide. It is absolutely no time to delay.

Peter Gibson: It is a pleasure to be called to speak in today’s groundhog debate and to draw the House’s attention to the phenomenal work being done across Darlington to help students to catch up after a year of significant disruption. I thank all the schools in Darlington, the teachers, the headteachers and other school staff for their amazing work throughout the past year, supporting their pupils’ education both in the classroom and online.
Despite the constraints of the pandemic, good things have been achieved. I commend Skerne Park Academy, under the excellent leadership of Kate Chisholm, whose school was recently recognised in the levelling-up awards. This is also my first opportunity to congratulate Dame Maura Regan of the Bishop Hogarth Education Trust, who was recognised by Her Majesty in the Birthday Honours.
Last Friday, I spent the afternoon at Corporation Road Community Primary School, which is ably led by Ann Pringleton. I look forward to joining them for their build of their new adventure play park next month. Kate, Ann and Dame Maura are incredible leaders who have done much in their organisations to meet the challenges of the pandemic.
Sadly, evidence suggests that disadvantaged children in the north-east have been among the hardest hit. Although Government, business, community and  charity-funded laptops and devices have done much to bridge the digital divide, it is not enough, but the Government recognise that and are prioritising our children’s education.
We all know the long-term consequences for children’s learning, development, attainment and mental health. We cannot undo the last 15 months, but we can back the steps being taken to reduce their impact, which is why I welcome the package of support and investment from the Government. The £3 billion education catch-up programme will fund high-quality tutoring specifically targeted at the most disadvantaged students. That is exactly the sort of support that will reach those in most need in Darlington.
In addition to the education recovery plan, the Government have announced the biggest funding increase for schools in a decade, raising core funding to £52.2 billion by 2022-23. In my constituency, per pupil funding in secondary schools will rise, on average, to £5,726 and in primary schools to £4,454. The Government’s 10-year plan will transform our schools.
While the Labour party continues to play political games with education, this Government are showing that they are prioritising our educational recovery, delivering billions of pounds to schools across the country. I know that this investment will have a lasting impact in Darlington.

Taiwo Owatemi: I share my colleagues’ frustration at this Government’s haphazard approach to helping children to catch up on their education. In recent days, many of my constituents in Coventry North West have come forward to suggest how best we can help those left behind by lockdown, remote learning and self-isolation.
From extracurricular activities to small groups for tutoring, one clear theme emerges: a belief that we must do everything we can to help children to catch up and get their education back on track. Contrast this with the feeble response proposed by this Government. The measly sums they have put forward are barely a 10th of what we know is needed. We are facing a social and economic emergency. Education is the greatest leveller of all. The gap left by this inadequate plan will only further harm social mobility and allow the attainment gap in our schools to widen further.
Why should our children put up with less than the best mental health support after 18 months of plummeting wellbeing and record levels of stress and anxiety? Why should our children put up with anything less than focused tutoring for all who need extra help, while the Government proposed a scheme that would reach only 1% of pupils? Why should our children put up with anything less than healthy and nutritious meals every day, with the Government once again refusing to fund free school meals throughout the holidays?
Ministers are now left with one big question to answer. Why are they so happy to put forward a third-rate catch-up plan? Was the Secretary of State for Education simply too weak to stand up for the nation’s children at Cabinet and too weak to secure funding from Treasury, even when his own experts said how much was needed? If he was unable to do the job properly, I would politely suggest that he finds another job. Or was it the Chancellor of the Exchequer who chose to ignore the needs of the economy by skimping on catch-up funding? Stunted growth and shrunken wages will be the result of his inability to grasp the importance of investing in the next generation. His shaky grasp on the numbers indicates that he, too, could do with some extra tuition.
It is not too late for Ministers to do the right thing. They could call time on their half-baked plan and bring forward an improved set of proposals. They could introduce a bold, brave children’s recovery plan that means breakfast clubs, sports and after-school activities for pupils, fully funded free school meals for those in need, mental health support to fix dangerously low levels of wellbeing, extra training for staff, and small group tutoring for all those who are falling further behind.
This Government will not be the one who pay the price for their craven failures to listen to the experts and stump up cash. It will be those who cannot speak for themselves. It will be the youngest and most disadvantaged pupils in my city of Coventry who will now struggle to catch up.

Jonathan Gullis: I would like to start by thanking and congratulating all the fantastic teachers, support staff, parents and pupils across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke and  by giving a special shout-out to Lisa Ackley, who was a The Times Educational Supplement awards finalist for classroom support assistant of the year for her work at Ormiston Horizon Academy. I would also like to thank the fantastic year 10 students I met last Friday at the Excel Academy in Sneyd Green, who are fully supportive of an extended school day. I look forward to going around and rallying that cry from all the students across my constituency to pass that on to the Minister.
But we are back here again. On Twitter, the Labour party clearly did not get the likes and retweets it wanted, so decided to try to repeat this debate all over again. The Not Education Union seems to own the Labour party when it comes to education policy. Let us not forget that Labour was silent when the NEU said in March last year that teachers should not be teaching a full timetable or routinely marking. Labour was silent on the 180-point checklist of things that the Not Education Union wanted to see before schools could open, and it was silent about the scaremongering that was being done by the Not Education Union over school safety, ignoring the JCVI’s advice, wanting to vaccinate teachers instead of those who are most vulnerable to coronavirus, which means our top nine categories.
Also, let us not forget that the Not Education Union spent over £500,000 from its general funds to basically play party politics. It was accused of breaking the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. So let us be quite clear: Kevin Courtney and Dr Mary Bousted are a shambles. They should do the honourable thing and resign with immediate effect. I will happily go and pack up their stuff and send it to their home addresses, because I am sick and tired of boring socialist trade unionists who are focused on their own political agenda rather than on educating children and looking after their teachers properly—that is why so few people pay into the party political fund—yet they shower their money on the Labour party to try to get it in their grasp.
Let us have a look at what this Government have done over the last 12 months: an increase to core school funding of £2.6 billion for 2020-21 and a further increase of £2.2 billion for 2021-22; raising the pupil premium to over £2.5 billion; £1 billion of investment to improve the school estate; increased high needs funding, with £780 million more for 2020-21 and £730 million extra next year; £520 million for free school meals national voucher scheme; £410 million to provide more than 1.3 million digital devices; £220 million for the expansion of the holiday activities and food programme; £63 million to local authorities to help with food; exceptional funding to cover specific, unavoidable costs incurred by schools due to coronavirus worth £102 million in total—over £14 billion, with a £3 billion catch-up. This is a Government who care about our families and young people.

Catherine McKinnell: The north-east has a higher proportion of long-term disadvantaged children than other parts of the country, and that simply has to be tackled if levelling up is ever to become more than a slogan. We know, and the Government acknowledge, that the least well-off children have been at the highest risk of falling behind their classmates over the past 15 months, both in the school classroom and elsewhere, yet the Government’s  education recovery proposals do not seem serious about meeting the challenge. The £1.4 billion package amounts to less than 10% of the £15 billion that Sir Kevan Collins, the Government’s own education recovery chief, who recently resigned, called for. The Government’s caveat that more money may come, with no suggestion of when or what it might look like, provides little comfort. It increasingly looks as if the Government plan to bundle together various pots of funding on an ad hoc basis and call it an education recovery package, but that is not good enough. We need a bold vision for truly transforming the lives of our children and young people. Warm words need to backed up with action and funding.
It is vital that Government trust headteachers to tailor what little support is available to the needs of their schools and pupils so that it can be used most effectively. The Government’s proposals focus heavily on tutoring, but academic research shows that small groups and individual work can be effective for pupils who are struggling—it does not have to be external tutoring. If schools want their staff, who know the pupils, to provide support, as many schools in the north-east have chosen to do, they should have the flexibility to access the funding that works best for them.
While we all want to see academic progress, the past 15 months have been a frightening time for our children, with disrupted routines, reduced contact with friends and relatives, and fear of the virus, so it is disappointing that there is not any funding to support the crucial social enrichment on which many children have missed out, including sports clubs and music lessons. Funding plans must recognise the need for mental health support. Given that the long-term impact of the past 15 months has still to unfold, we will not be able to sustain the academic progress that we all want to see without additional support for the wellbeing of our children and young people. The two go hand in hand.
The Government have failed to show the ambition needed to meet the scale of the education challenge. They must change course and invest in our children now. Failure to do so is not only wrong but a false economy, as future generations will pay the price in lost earnings and lost opportunities, and our country will be the poorer for it.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: Well, here we are again, with another Opposition day debate and another attempt to grab negative headlines. It did not work last time, and did not gain the publicity or the traction on social media that the Opposition wanted, so they are back for a second bite of the cherry on the same issue. Perhaps they stayed up late watching “Groundhog Day”, rather than doing their homework, or simply resorted to copying instead.
Efforts to facilitate online learning must be applauded, but we know that there are many children who have missed face-to-face teaching, with the added advantages that that brings. As a former teacher, I know the value of delivering lessons in person. The academic part of the job is important, but teachers play a vital pastoral role in maintaining the social and emotional wellbeing of their pupils. Most adults realise the isolation felt by  many when they are unable to see their colleagues, friends and family members, and that is why I am pleased that we are finally returning to something resembling normality.
So far, we have committed over £3 billion to deliver targeted interventions. That is only one part of our long-term education recovery plan. The next stage of that plan includes investing £1.4 billion, with about £1 billion for tutoring courses to recover lost teaching hours, and £400 million in training and development for teachers and staff. We have made an unprecedented investment in education, and have seen the biggest increase in funding for schools in a decade. That includes additional special educational needs funding, with £730 million for high needs this year, building on the £780 million that we have made available for 2020-21.
Let us not pay too much attention to the Opposition’s criticisms of investment either, when they are not even using like-for-like comparisons with other countries and have failed to take into account the entire package being offered.
So what exactly are we looking at from the Opposition: changes to the structure of school holidays, or extended school days? No—they provide no serious plans whatsoever other than simply saying that whatever figure is presented, it is not enough. When I grew up, I remember the old commercials with the Man from Del Monte. At least he occasionally said yes to things, whereas the response from Labour and the unions is simply to say no. It more closely resembles a broken record from the ’90s band 2 Unlimited. Labour has shown time and again that it cannot be trusted with our children’s education. Our academy and free school programmes have given children in some of the most deprived areas of the country the chance to attend outstanding schools. Labour did not even want our children back in the classrooms, and, along with teaching unions, wanted closures almost right away. We wanted our children back at school and we are now taking action to help them to catch up.
I commend the work of this Government and once again thank our teachers, support staff, parents and pupils for their hard work and dedication throughout this pandemic and beyond.

Neil Coyle: This Government’s litany of let-downs for our children started last March by locking schools down late. That delay by Ministers has cost lives, as we have the highest death toll in Europe, and cost jobs, as we have the worst damage to any major economy. The litany of damage continued with June with the first U-turn on free school meals and the Prime Minister only giving in after Marcus Rashford’s brilliant campaign and support from the Labour party.

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Neil Coyle: No.
Then we had the exam grades controversy, with Ministers carping about the SNP in Scotland before being forced to abandon their own algorithm after it caused damage for young people in our country. In September, we saw the launch of the kickstart scheme with much fanfare and the claim that it would create 200,000 jobs for  young people. Well, nine months later the figure is about 8% of that. Of the 1,240 unemployed young people in my constituency, kickstart has helped 11, or 1%, using the Department for Work and Pensions’ figure, which is inflated to include schoolchildren on work placements.
In October, the Prime Minister humiliated his own MPs when he forced them to vote against free school meal provision and then changed his mind and gave in, again, just a few days later. In January, we saw the utter farce of schools returning for one day after Ministers again ignored advice, causing chaos for schools that have done so much to try to ensure that our children had a quality education throughout this crisis. It goes on. In January, we had Chartwells, the Government’s contractors, going viral with pictures showing how poor the quality and quantity of the food parcels being provided was, causing ridicule for the Government. Then, in February, we had the devious cut to the pupil premium, leaving 1,000 children in Southwark actually facing a loss this year. The total loss to Southwark schools is over £1.2 million—a cut.
Now we have Ministers rejecting their own commissioner’s recovery plans and offering less than 10% of what he claimed was required to equip our children for the future. Instead they offered a derisory package of £50 per child, compared with £1,600 per child in the United States or £2,500 per child in the Netherlands. That pitiful offer says a lot about how poorly this Government value our children, our young people, and the future of this country.

Suzanne Webb: It is a privilege to speak in this debate. The debate does seem somewhat familiar, but despite that, it gives me the opportunity to thank those who work in teaching across my constituency—we owe them all a debt of gratitude for their dedication, their passion, and all their hard work—and of course the pupils who just got on with it.
I also thank Labour Members for the opportunity to reiterate that children’s education is this Government’s priority. Providing over £3 billion in catch-up support is just one part of a long-term plan for education recovery. At the start of the pandemic, there was a £1 billion commitment to ensure that pupils were able to catch up and £650 million for the catch-up premium. Nor should we forget that there has been money for mental health, summer schools and summer activities. Over £450 million has been spent through the food voucher scheme. There has been £400 million to provide laptops, tablets and internet access, with over 1.3 million computers built to order, imported, configured and delivered to schools. There has also been £139 million provided to help schools to cope with the exceptional costs they faced during the first lockdown.
Compare and contrast that with Labour Members, who have spent the past year equivocating over whether schools should open, damaging public confidence and confusing the message. Their mooted £14.7 billion education plan, which proposes spending more than 10 times as much as the Government are suggesting, would be fantastic if it were realistic and if we knew specifically how it would be funded, but we do not. Nor should we forget that when Labour was trusted with education, we fell down the international league table for school  performance. Even now, we are having an Opposition day debate about a paper trail instead of focusing on what really matters.
What really matters is this: children are resilient if we allow them to be. My concern is that confusing messages and debates from Opposition Members do nothing but undermine that and provide uncertainty when kids need certainty. Across my constituency, supported by the Government, everything has been done to keep children in the classroom and prioritise the safe reopening of schools. From the onset of the pandemic, safeguarding education has been the top priority of a Government focused on saving lives and accelerating the vaccination programme—a Government who have acted.
All of us in this great place had a childhood and an education that was not marred by a pandemic. Let us not let this pandemic mar our children’s or grandchildren’s futures with misleading messages or debates, but focus collectively on ensuring that no child is left behind and that every child has the same opportunity and future as all of us.

Karin Smyth: I pay tribute to all the school leaders in colleges and schools across south Bristol, and particularly to the parents and young people, for getting through this difficult year. They all had high hopes of the education recovery commissioner, whom the Government had asked to come up with a plan to ensure that schoolchildren could catch up on what they had missed out on. However, the Government ignored the evidence-based plan, awarding just a 10th of the necessary funding and then forcing him to resign because their behaviour, in his words,
“betrays an undervaluation of the importance of education”.
I recently met the Minister to discuss the pupil premium and educational outcomes in Bristol South. I am grateful for his time and attention; he is a Minister who usually does his homework, unlike many others. However, I also recently met school leaders in Bristol South, as I do every year. I meet primary and secondary headteachers as a group, because I want to understand their shared issues and ambitions and help to improve outcomes across south Bristol.
Such a meeting now happens rarely across south Bristol because of the evolution of the multi-academy trust system. There are six secondary schools in Bristol South, covered by six multi-academy trusts; in all, the nearly 40 state-funded schools in Bristol South are run by 12 different organisations. I do think that some MATs act well as a family of schools, but I do not think that they serve the families of south Bristol as well as they should or could.
Families live in the communities of south Bristol, not in the community of the MAT. In some cases, vertical support through the MAT seems to be working well, but while headteachers are accountable upwards within the MAT, south Bristol families live in local communities. Parents expect each child to be supported and educated well in their community through early years, primary, secondary, post-16 and higher education, but children are experiencing too many different organisations as part of that journey. Crucially, there is no accountability across south Bristol for the outcome of that journey, which is the destination of those young people—their chance in life.
In my six years as MP for Bristol South, my focus has been on further education and apprenticeships post 16 to help young people fulfil their potential, but I have realised that the lack of ownership and accountability for destination, success and outcomes is a major problem that no number of well-meaning piecemeal initiatives will solve. I now see that the pandemic and the loss of learning must be the catalyst for taking this seriously.
We will not solve the problem of poor education outcomes for these children without focus on the context of their lives. That focus has to be local and at the transition between all levels. For me, supporting further education is the only approach that can capture those children and, with the right professional support and stability of funding, help them to reach their true potential. Covid-19 has exacerbated the disproportionate impact of poor education on young people. We absolutely need to use this opportunity to make things better for the future.

Kevin Hollinrake: The point I would like to make in this debate is that we should not fall into the trap of thinking this is all about money. There are factors behind success and achievement other than money, and it is debilitating to think that is the only thing that counts.
Before I go on to illustrate what I am talking about, I would just pick up on the comment the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) made that the UK has the worst death rate in Europe. There is no doubt that the UK has been hit pretty hard, but there are actually 16 countries with a worse rate than the UK in the world, including six across Europe—Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Belgium and Italy. It is important that we do look at the actual facts. He is a far more friendly chap outside the Chamber, particularly in Strangers Bar, than he is in here.

Neil Coyle: It is unfair of the hon. Member to reveal that I am nicer outside the Chamber.
The hon. Member is actually using a different figure. He is using a per capita model, not the raw death toll. We have the highest death toll in Europe by number of population overall.

Kevin Hollinrake: That is what the hon. Member said, and I apologise, but I think it is important to look at the context, and I think the per capita figure is very relevant.
The other point I would like to make is about the motion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) made this point very well. It does endanger candid advice if the Opposition are simply going to request all the information and all the debate behind the scenes. Actually, I do not agree with him on one aspect—we would still get candid advice; it just would not be written down, and I do not really think that is very useful. I know it has been some time—I do not mean this rudely—since the Opposition have been in government, but the reality is that there is bound to be frank and open discussion behind the scenes about different policies on different things. I do not think it is right that simply getting at all the debate behind the scenes will be useful on this particular issue.
The Government have put a package together. As has been said, they may well need more money to address this issue fully. Nevertheless, 6 million packages of 15 hours of tuition is quite a significant investment, and no doubt there will be other things coming along as well. A number of Members have asked why we did not simply follow Sir Kevan Collins’s recommendation to commit £15 billion. That is obviously a matter for the Government, but I have heard the Opposition say on a number of occasions that there would be a £100 billion payback from that £15 billion. I do not know whether the shadow Education Secretary, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), has used that figure, but I have heard the Leader of the Opposition use it. Having been in business quite a long time, I have had various department heads come through my door on lots of occasions and say, “I’ve got this great idea to spend x amount of money, and it will result in this kind of payback.” People can make anything look good on a spreadsheet. The Opposition cannot guarantee that the £15 billion would have a £100 billion effect.
The reality is that we have to choose. In government, we have to choose, and of course if we do not choose—I have heard this in so many debates over the last few years—we have the Opposition calling again and again for more spending. I think somebody should really add up all those numbers, because I am sure it would amount to trillions of pounds of spending. We simply cannot go on like that. We have at some point to try to balance the books. I do not think that is something either party has done that well in government, on the basis that very rarely—I think in only five years out of the last 40—have any Government balanced the books, and we have to make difficult choices to do that.
My final point, in the 30 seconds I have left, is to look at what happened in North Yorkshire. I said that it is not all about money, and it was disappointing that our county council took a number of weeks to facilitate online learning in many of the schools across North Yorkshire. It was simply wrong to take eight weeks to develop a policy on online learning using Zoom and the like. However, schools such as Malton School—a very good local authority maintained school—had already put in place a package of support using iPads. It had done that years before, so it was able to do this. Excellent teachers can find solutions without simply having lots of Government money thrown at a problem.

Mohammad Yasin: Just four months ago, we heard the Government make promises that every young person would be supported to catch up on their education and gain the skills and knowledge they need to be able to seize opportunities in future. After the catalogue of errors in dealing with the pandemic, with schools going back for just one day in January after the Prime Minister could not decide whether they were safe while hospitals were filling up with covid patients, it was encouraging to hear that the Prime Minister had hired the highly respected Sir Kevan Collins to step in and oversee the recovery from the biggest crisis our schools have ever faced.
Sir Kevan, knighted for his services to education, did exactly what was asked of him and led a comprehensive programme of catch-up aimed at young people who had lost out on learning during the pandemic. He  estimated, with a strong evidence base, that £15 billion was needed to ensure that the nation’s children were not blighted by the huge hit to their education. Teachers agreed, parents agreed, but unfortunately the Prime Minister and the Chancellor did not. They gave away millions to friends and Tory donors for contracts that did not deliver, and they wasted billions on a test, trace and isolation programme that was a total failure when we needed it most, but when it comes to our children’s education, the purse strings are pulled tight, with just £50 per pupil per year to make up for the last 18 months.
Even today, because the Prime Minister failed to protect our borders, children are being sent home to isolate because of the delta variant. They are still being affected. The Government have offered just £1.4 billion, a pitiful offer to our children, who have had so much of their lives impacted. Their mental health and wellbeing have been severely challenged. Sir Kevan’s resignation letter to the Prime Minister says it all, really. He made it perfectly clear:
“I do not believe it will be possible to deliver a successful recovery without significantly greater support than the government has to date indicated it intends to provide.”
Certainly the teachers I have spoken to in Bedford and Kempston have told me that the funding announced by the Government will not scratch the surface in helping children to catch up. A primary school headteacher I spoke to yesterday told me that he is already trying to provide a quality, broad and balanced curriculum and to make up for the children’s time away from school on reduced funding. That was hard already, but the challenges posed in trying to provide what each child and family needs following the pandemic are monumental. That headteacher is ready, willing and able to offer interventions to give our children the best chance in life—

Nigel Evans: Order. Sorry, Mohammad, you have run out of time.

Marco Longhi: We see yet again, don’t we, that Labour will always push for a debate that focuses solely on money and not on real outcomes? That is quite ironic from the party that left a note saying
“I’m afraid there is no money”
when it was in charge. In their media appearances, Labour Members show a total inability to set out how they would finance their grand plans for education, let alone to relate any of the spending to outcomes.
I was a school governor for several years. I have seen the financial inner workings of schools, and I have seen what good investment and bad investment can do to the quality of education. My schools in Dudley North were left underfunded and unsupported by Labour, so I welcome this Government’s plans and their promise to deliver on levelling up our education system as we build back better. That will be achieved through targeted investment to improve school buildings in the worst conditions and to increase funding for children with special educational needs. A good education for every child will give them the best start in life.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) once described the pandemic as a “good crisis” for Labour to make a political opportunity out of. That  says it all. Is there any substance behind her calling this debate, or is it yet another opportunity for her to provide selective soundbites for her social media channels to make it look like Labour cares about our children getting an adequate education? Labour could not seem to decide what its policies were over the past 15 months. Did it want schools to open or to remain closed? Does it want teachers to teach more, or does it want them to spend time being glorified babysitters over the summer, so that children can relax and enjoy life? Unlike the Opposition, throughout this pandemic this Conservative Government have consistently tried to get children back into the classroom where they belong and where they are at their happiest. The Opposition have more flip-flops than a Havaianas shop. They cannot seem to decide, even with the benefit of hindsight.

Tan Dhesi: I am grateful to the shadow Treasury and Education teams for bringing this important debate to the House. Undoubtedly, one of the biggest challenges that our nation faces is supporting the millions of children and young adults studying across the country following the devastating impact of the past year, so I am hugely disappointed that once again the Government have ignored the experts and offered less than 10% of what the Government’s own education recovery commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, called for.
Frankly, it is insulting to the teachers, parents, school staff and early years providers, who have ensured that children in Slough and beyond could access education throughout one of the most disruptive periods that they have ever seen. Without their tenacity, determination and commitment in wanting the very best for future generations, our children would not have received the care, support and education that they needed over the past year. They achieved that all after a decade of Government neglect, which delivered the largest cuts to school funding in 40 years.
Just last year, Slough headteachers wrote to me to say that they had
“become increasingly disillusioned by a persistent lack of effective and credible leadership emanating from the Department for Education.”
Sadly, with the so-called catch-up plan the DFE has continued that trend, with funding that covers less than £1 per day that children were out of school and a tutoring programme that reaches just 1% of pupils. It seems that the Prime Minister and Chancellor have blocked the much needed funds that were initially asked for, letting down an entire generation. Do they think that it makes economic sense to not invest in our children?
Labour’s fully costed plan would deliver exactly what parents and teachers have been calling for: a well-rounded catch-up plan including mental health support, drama, sports, book clubs, continued development for teachers and an extension of free school meals over the holidays. That provision would be targeted with an education recovery premium to ensure that those who faced the greatest disruption are given additional support.
What is worse is that this Tory Government know  the consequences of the inadequate support that  they have offered. As Sir Kevan Collins noted in his resignation letter,
“the settlement provided will define the international standing of England’s education system for years to come.”
That is consolidated by reports from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, showing that if students had lost an average of six months of schooling they could see a reduction in their lifetime income of 4%, so why will Ministers not stop treating children as an afterthought in our recovery and prioritise their wellbeing, education and life chances? Inaction now will fail generations for decades to come.

Katherine Fletcher: I have not yet had an opportunity to pay full tribute to the teachers in schools in South Ribble, who did such a stunning job during the pandemic, including inspirational educational leaders such as the guys at the multi-academy Endeavour Learning Trust—my thanks to them.
In her opening remarks, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) questioned the decisions made about massive sums of money, national changes and big-ticket items. Was the idea that such big decisions would be made quickly, with no evidence on what works? Personally, I support the idea of a longer school day, which I think has huge advantages, but I would not like to see it implemented nationally without evidence of its effectiveness. Without such evidence, Government Members do not support commitments to spending billions.
In her opening remarks, the shadow Minister described wanting to ensure that vast sums of money are spent effectively as misguided dogma. No, not really. She asked to see the working-out. Let me step back a little in history to show what Labour’s version of working-out looks like in the education space. As a snotty young IT coder, I was in the Department for Education and Skills back in the early noughties, working on the independent learning accounts recovery programme. The first programme had been put out to achieve a headline—get Mr Tony Blair’s grid.
What happened? Millions of pounds went out the door in fraud. The National Audit Office report from the time is on the record. I assure Members that having seen the data, my little, snotty IT coders and I reckon that about 10 times that money went out the door. It went out the door because Labour was chasing a headline. It was throwing millions at an idea without having a plan, without having thought it through and without having evaluated it. That is not what we are doing here. We all care about children; it is hugely important. The Opposition are proud of “Education, education, education”, but that should not be at any cost, not at unlimited and uncontrolled cost and not producing ineffective outcomes that have not been evaluated.
There is no knee-jerk headline chasing on these Benches, because what we want is the effective use of Government money, in the best way to target and help children. I see a game-playing motion here today, and I will not support it.

Grahame Morris: For many children, especially in my constituency of Easington, home learning has been very difficult. I point out that 36.9% of children  in my constituency were classed as living in poverty in 2019-20. The effects of the pandemic have not been felt evenly, with disadvantaged children in the poorest areas hit hardest.
Despite the existing inequalities and challenges, and our schools in many areas being at breaking point, Ministers seem to have found new ways to cut school funding, and that is something I take the opportunity to highlight. The north-east could lose up to £7 million due to administrative changes to how pupil premium funding is calculated and allocated, with the Government switching from using the January schools census to using the October census. What that means is that schools with children who became eligible for funding during the pandemic will not receive any additional funding for another year.
Using the October census date rather than the January date is significant, because many children were not at school then, so it was not such a priority for parents to register. In my constituency of Easington, 20 out of 28 primary schools will be affected. The average loss will be about £9,400. When we are talking about the additional sums—I heard the Minister’s opening statement—I believe it is about £6,000 for the average primary school. The average loss will be £9,400 in my constituency, but the worst-affected schools will lose nearly £30,000. The total loss to schools in my constituency is £180,000.
It is absolutely reprehensible to remove resources from schools at any time, but to do so after the biggest public health crisis for a generation, when more funding is urgently required, is unconscionable. Funding education is an investment in our children, and society will reap dividends today and in the future. The Government have had an opportunity to make a statement of intent by implementing the recommendations that Sir Kevan Collins, the Government-appointed education tsar, made. He gave them the evidence. That would have helped every child. I hope parents will reflect on the decision and think about the loss of funding for schools in areas such as mine when they hear Government Members talk about levelling up.

Nigel Evans: The reason I did not interrupt you, Grahame, is because we have had a few withdrawals and we are able to put the time limit to four minutes for every contribution at the moment.

Grahame Morris: Ah!

Nigel Evans: Well, I didn’t stop you, Grahame. I call Ben Everitt.

Ben Everitt: The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) is welcome to intervene if he wants his extra minute. It is a definite pleasure to follow him, because he ended with the phrase “levelling up”. Education is about levelling up, so today’s debate is really important, despite the déjà vu from debating the same thing as last week. Why, oh why, are the Opposition using these debates to say the same thing? It is good news for us, though, because education is at the heart of levelling up.
Even prior to the pandemic, we introduced our new 10-year plan to transform schools across England, with 500 new projects over the next decade and spending  prioritised to the schools with buildings in the worst condition. We are cracking on with it, and we were before the pandemic. Work started this year on the first 50 projects, backed by £1 billion of Government funding. Before the pandemic, we had already delivered the biggest funding for schools increase in a decade—£14.4 billion over three years, with the core schools budget up last year to £47.6 billion, rising in 2023 to £52.2 billion.
Of course there are those on the Opposition Benches who will always call for more and say, “It’s not enough,” but even before the pandemic we had been working on levelling up educational opportunities—giving every child in England a funding boost, with a minimum £5,150 per pupil in secondary and £4,000 per pupil in primaries. Now, faced with the damage to children’s learning that the pandemic has caused, we are taking even more action, targeting funding at children who need it the most. So far, we have committed a total of £3 billion to fund targeted interventions for students who need it now, focusing on those who have found learning tough during the pandemic.
Too often in this place, we are guilty of using the word “investment” when what we actually mean is “spending”, but in this area, there is a business case for saying that we are investing in our children; we are investing in our future. Britain—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is the greatest country on planet Earth, and its citizens are the best people on planet Earth. We owe it to future generations to provide a quality education to children. That is why there are elements of the support package that are rolled in to the impacts that it will have on future generations—training and development for teachers, language skills, resource investment, giving children the digital skills needed to compete on the global stage and to be the pioneers for global Britain. We are delivering the right targeted interventions to those who need them the most. We will have a generation of brilliant young minds. Building back better means nurturing those minds to be leaders—the leaders of global Britain in future years.

Nigel Evans: Barbara, I don’t know if the good news has reached you, but we have put the time limit up to four minutes.

Barbara Keeley: It has—thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Today’s debate cuts to a central issue with this Government. Although there is much talk of levelling up, the reality is that the Chancellor holding the purse strings has no interest in investing in vital public services. It is telling that there is no Treasury Minister here today to defend his decisions. Trying to do recovery on the cheap simply will not work after the damaging year that our children and young people have had during the pandemic. The Government’s announcement means just one hour-long session of tutoring every fortnight; funding for this is only £1 per child a week. There is nothing for children’s mental health, wellbeing or socialisation. Importantly, there will be no dedicated support for disabled children.
Those are financial decisions with a real human impact. The Disabled Children’s Partnership makes it clear that the difference between current and pre-pandemic  levels of support for disabled children is vast: 70% of disabled children have been unable to access services such as occupational therapy or speech and language therapy, and 60% of their families are still experiencing delays and challenges in accessing the health appointments they need. The lack of access to multiple education and health services has been detrimental to the health of parent carers, with their disabled children and wider families also persistently isolated. All that, sadly, now brings the threat of children developing additional long-term health problems.
In response to that, the Government have offered nothing. They have offered nothing to provide children with social activities to make up for a year spent isolated from their friends. They have offered no funding to help crucial services, such as speech and language therapy, to step up their delivery to make up for lost time. They have offered no funding to allow unpaid carers to take the respite breaks they need after the extra caring workload they have shouldered during the pandemic. Those are specific, targeted interventions, which the Treasury has decided are not worth the cost.
The education recovery fiasco shows that the Prime Minister does not care enough to stand up to the Chancellor over the challenges facing our country. How else can the Government explain Ministers telling Sir Kevan Collins that money is no object and then signing off on only a tenth of what is needed? If the Chancellor can simply say no to the Prime Minister’s own education tsar, what does that mean for other areas of investment? If the Chancellor will not support our children, how can we be sure that he will give the NHS the support it needs to address historic waiting lists? Will he provide the change that our social care system needs so that older and disabled people can live independently in their own homes, rather than being forced to sell their home to pay for care? Will levelling up turn out to be just another unfunded soundbite that does nothing for areas that desperately need change?
Our public services need a Government who are fully behind them, not a Chancellor who is more interested in his own profile and a Prime Minister who seems happy to take a back seat. Otherwise, the next few years will look much like the last decade: cuts for our crucial public services just when we can least afford them.

Rachel Hopkins: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley).
The Government’s proposed recovery plan is woefully inadequate, completely underestimates the scale of the recovery required and provides nothing to boost children’s mental health, wellbeing or social development through the creative arts, sports or simply play, despite parents saying that that is their top concern after the isolation of lockdown. The Prime Minister’s own education recovery commissioner, Kevan Collins, called for an investment of £15 billion—the equivalent of £700 per pupil over three years—to support children’s recovery, yet the Government’s package is 10 times less, offering only £50 extra per student per year.
What Kevan Collins has described as a “half-hearted approach” that
“risks failing hundreds of thousands of pupils”,
I would describe as shameful and an insult to the hardworking pupils, parents, teachers and school staff in Luton South, who have gone above and beyond over the past 15 months. If Conservative Members truly believe that the level of ambition in the Government’s plan is sufficient, it means that they are happy to neglect the future of the children in our country. Kevan Collins’s resignation is a damning indictment of the Government’s meagre proposals, and it demonstrates that the Government will fail to deliver the bold action that our children deserve.
The public deserve answers: why are Ministers and the Chancellor acting as obstacles to our young people’s recovery? The Government must come clean and explain why the substantial recovery plan proposed by the Prime Minister’s own education recovery commissioner was blocked. If the Government will not provide an adequate explanation as to why they rejected Kevan Collins’s proposals, they should publish all Treasury correspondence, and the official evaluations and impact assessments of the proposals, so that the public can make their own assessment. I hope that the Minister, in her closing remarks, will explain what urgent steps will be taken to address Kevan Collins’s concerns by increasing the investment in the recovery package.
The Labour party’s children’s recovery plan will match young people’s ambition for their own futures, give schools the resources to transform the extracurricular and enrichment opportunities available to every child, and invest in targeted learning for the children who need it most. Our comprehensive plan would deliver breakfast clubs for every child, quality mental health support in every school, additional investment for children who have struggled the most and support to help teachers develop, and it would guarantee that eligible children receive free school meals every day this summer. Will the Minister explain which part of that plan she opposes?
The long-term costs of not pursuing such a plan will be much higher than the upfront investment that is required. The Education Policy Institute has said that doing nothing would cost our economy £142 billion in the long term. That is almost 30 times more than the cost of our package. We must pursue a bold, ambitious strategy. Our young people’s futures and the future of our country depend on it.

Ben Spencer: I start by again thanking the teachers who work in my constituency; the people who work in and around schools and early years; those who work at our university, Royal Holloway; and everyone who is involved in supporting, looking after and educating our children. It has been a very difficult year for everyone, in particular for our young people and everyone who works in the education sector. I just want to say thanks to them again.
I really enjoyed last week’s debate, so I was absolutely delighted and surprised that the Opposition seemed to enjoy my contribution so much that they wanted to hear it again. Here we go:
“Education is one of the best opportunities”—[Official Report, 9 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 981.]—
but if Members wish to see my speech, they may go to Hansard or to my website, where it is up and subtitled; the very daring may subscribe to my newsletter for regular updates.
This groundhog day debate gives me the chance to say something that did not make the cut of my education debate speech version 1.0, so I will try a different ending. We have talked a lot about education, and it is said that irony is a very difficult concept to teach, perhaps best taught through example. This past year, we have moved heaven and earth to keep schools open. We tried to reopen them as soon as possible, but the Opposition and the unions pushed back. Now, they complain that the support is not enough. The irony, a lesson to us all!

Nigel Evans: I think we now go to Paul Howell.

Paul Howell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought a few more were before me.

Nigel Evans: So did I.

Paul Howell: That is probably why I have a couple of minutes more.
The £1.4 billion is the next instalment. That is on top of the previous sums poured into education, including £400 million into remote education. They total more than £3 billion. Given the large figures that have been flying around for the past year in the wake of the crisis, we need to remember that £3 billion is a lot of money. It is a huge amount of money that will fund huge improvements, and I am sure that the Treasury will find more funding, should it be convinced that the plans are fully understood and costed.
The proposals from Sir Kevan included huge sums to increase the school day. Sir Kevan’s job was to advise what would help children to catch up, and he did, by suggesting that they literally make up the hours lost. Having met brilliant local schools, such as Ferryhill, Woodham, Bishopton and Wellfield, I absolutely confirm that schools have been working full throttle in the past year.
In fact, to go back to Wellfield School for a second, I had the pleasure of going there last week. It is a school that has turned around over the past 10 years, from completely failing with no intake—an intake of 78, instead of 180—to now being oversubscribed. That is just a shout out to an incredible school that has done some incredible work over the past few years.
The school bell ringing at 3 pm does not equate to a teacher’s day, or the school day, finishing. Teachers take home marking, lesson plans and extra tutoring. The rest of the school staff are dealing with the many complications of a covid world throughout this pandemic. They have regularly needed to enable teaching and learning simultaneously in the classroom and online. Schools and teachers need our thanks and engagement, not the imposition of more work under a misguided assumption that they have anything left in their tank. At the very least, if we are to consider extending the school day, surely a consultation is imperative.
With a little more time than I anticipated, I also make a shout out for some certainty, please, on the school sport premium funding, which I saw at first hand at  Walworth and Sedgefield primary schools recently. We also need to ensure that teachers are working more effectively, rather than longer and harder. We simply cannot afford teacher burnout. That is largely where the Government’s plan focuses.
Teacher training with £153 million will provide the opportunity for evidence-based professional development for early-years practitioners, while a further £253 million will expand existing teacher training and development and give 500,000 schoolteachers the opportunity to access world-leading training. Having access to such training, teachers will be able to ensure that their teaching time is even more effective and efficient, and strikes the balance between providing excellent education and not overstretching our teachers.
We need to trust that, having been given that training, teachers are the most qualified and best placed experts to teach children and to get their education back on track. That is the job that they have spent years of their life readying themselves for.
Getting funding approved for those methods that are widely agreed to be most effective, such as teacher training, while looking to consult on the effectiveness of less conventional areas, such as extending the day, reflect on a Government whose own methodology is to get on with it and not to sit on the fence. At times like this, we need to deliver the obvious and not let perfection frustrate progress. Should robust evidence be presented in favour of less-obvious educational methods, I have no doubt that the Treasury will take another look at them.
To conclude, I reiterate my thanks for the school and all the staff who have worked tirelessly and selflessly this past year. I will continue to support the Government’s initiative to have them working smarter, not harder, and I hope that they manage to have a break over what I hope will be a lovely, covid-free summer.

Mary Foy: I simply cannot believe that after spending last year debating whether the Government should feed hungry children during the pandemic we are now, for the second time in a week, debating just how much children’s futures are worth as part of the recovery. Have we ever seen a Government who cared so little about the people they were meant to be serving?
During the pandemic, pupils’ education has been displaced and disrupted, moved between classroom and Zoom. School staff have gone above and beyond to ensure that pupils have still received an education—parents were instrumental, too—and they have my total admiration. Although we desperately need a comprehensive recovery plan to make up for lost development, it is testament to the graft of school staff that the situation is not as dire as it could have been, so it is shameful that all we hear from Government Members is the scapegoating of burnt-out staff and calls to pile more work on their shoulders.
Fortunately, the Labour party has proposed a catch-up plan that prioritises the interests of students and staff. While the Government’s plan is based on penny pinching, Labour’s is based on expert advice and investment. Our plan calls for breakfast clubs and extracurricular activities. It would make small-group tutoring available to all who need it and provide the quality mental health support necessary to meet the challenges ahead. Our  recovery plan matches young people’s ambition for their futures and gives schools the resources that they need.
We in the Labour party are often accused of being too ambitious—of offering too much—but when it comes to delivering the brightest future possible for children throughout society, can we ever be ambitious enough? Pupils have been deprived of a full education at a critical stage in their development and socialisation. It has been a hugely difficult year for young people and we cannot avoid the fact that it will take serious investment to correct it. As we know, when Sir Kevan Collins delivered his recommendations for a catch-up plan, the Government offered 10 times less than the funding he recommended. It really is not the time to be bargain hunting. We have one shot at this recovery and the Government simply must get it right, because the futures of millions of young people are at stake.
Throughout this pandemic, when the Government have attacked education unions for standing up for the interests of staff, pupils and parents, they have insisted that their priority is having children in the classroom and supporting their education; well, children are now back in the classroom, so it is time for the Government to decide whether they are going to invest in them or abandon them.

Jerome Mayhew: Over the past year I have been lucky enough to visit many of the schools here in Broadland, including, last Friday, Buxton Primary School, where year 4 students gave me a hard time about single-use plastics and the Government’s plan for the environment. The overwhelming impression given by all my visits has been one of determination and energy, with schools having risen to the challenges thrown up by covid-19.
Unlike Labour, the Government have been clear from the start that schools should be the last organisations to close under lockdown and the first to reopen. As we look at the past year, it is clear that that decision was right—and it was taken in the teeth of opposition from Labour. When school closures became unavoidable, teaching moved online and the Department for Education became the world’s largest purchaser of laptops, buying an astonishing 1.3 million devices to make sure that as many people as possible were able to take part in online learning, irrespective of their family circumstances.
Schools have adapted too. Any school visitor will recognise the huge difference in the quality and quantity of educational offering between the first lockdown and the second. Our teachers have learned a vast amount about how to teach well within the restrictions they have faced, but there have been enormous costs. A few weeks ago, I visited a secondary school where the atmosphere was positive and encouraging, and it was quite clear that the vast majority of students had bounced back. Yet that school now calls an ambulance to site several times a week to assist with pupils who have symptoms of extreme anxiety. The school has now recruited an additional two welfare staff to help smooth the path back to educational normality. I spoke to them, and they are extremely busy.
The point is that covid has not affected every student in the same way, so our response to recovery should recognise that and be targeted at the students who have  really suffered the most. As we emerge from the pandemic, the Government are right to focus on areas where the evidence shows results, with support for great teaching and high-quality tutoring for those who need it. The national tutoring programme to provide 6 million 15-hour tutoring courses for struggling schoolchildren comes at enormous cost—£1 billion—but it is an intervention that can be focused by teachers where it can do most good. Those teachers’ own catch-up skills will be enhanced by a further £400 million of training support. That programme fits the real needs that I have seen in schools when I have visited them, and it is the right first step in the plan for educational recovery.

Janet Daby: We expect a competent Government to step up and give the nation’s children the support they need. I think we all need to know why this Government are ignoring their own commissioner.
Children in deprived and disadvantaged circumstances need the Government to care about them and their future. During the pandemic, those of us on the Opposition Benches have had to fight to ensure that schoolchildren are not left without food. We have seen poorer families lose out on digital learning, and we have seen school heads struggle to manage a depleted budget and ever-changing situations with little guidance. And now, instead of investing in each child to give them a bright future, the Chancellor has decided that they will receive less than £1 a day to make up for the days they missed from school.
Education attainment gaps are only getting wider. That will have implications for many children; children with disabilities, refugees and asylum seekers, and children from poor and diverse backgrounds will be affected for decades to come if the Government do not do the right thing. In my constituency, black Caribbean boys are some of those who need the greatest therapeutic and educational support. We should not have to put a price on the gift of education for all children, but £1 is certainly not enough.
The Government had a chance to show that they care about these young lives by just listening and learning from their own education recovery commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, but they did not like the reality he showed them. What is the point in hiring an education recovery commissioner and then refusing to enact their recommendations to support the recovery? It is shocking and disgraceful.
In my constituency, around 34% of children live in poverty, with their parents or carers struggling to cover the cost of uniforms, food, new school shoes—and, with growing feet, new school shoes again—not to mention energy bills and rent; the list goes on. In February, all parents, carers and grandparents were told that every child would be supported to catch up on their education. Now, we find out from the Government that that is just not true.
Finally, I thank all school staff, including teachers, admin staff, caretakers and so on, for all the work they have done and will continue to do to educate our children during the pandemic and in times—hopefully much better times—to come.

Kim Johnson: I want to start by paying tribute to all the education establishments in Liverpool Riverside and all the amazing staff who have done a great job over the last 15 months.
I have listened with incredulity over the past couple of hours to Government Members, who I think must have selective amnesia about the 11 years of austerity we have experienced and the hollowing out of funding to our schools—clearly not levelling up. The Government’s pitiful proposal of a mere £50 per pupil for catch-up funding is utterly indefensible and a stain on our country; it is less than one tenth of the requirement laid down by their own education recovery commissioner, who just last week resigned over the refusal of the Minister to rise to the scale of the challenge, revealing just how little the Government value and prioritise the lives of working-class children growing up in this country.
Children from disadvantaged backgrounds have suffered most from the learning lost due to covid, with the attainment gap expected to widen by between 10% and 24% and estimates by the Education Endowment Foundation showing this could reverse a decade of progress in closing the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils. My constituency of Liverpool Riverside has one of the highest poverty rates in the country, with one in three children growing up in poverty. Liverpool has among the worst education attainment rates for persistently disadvantaged children in England, the most vulnerable being often two whole years of learning behind other students by the time they take their GCSEs. This is particularly acute for black children growing up in my constituency and across the country, who are more likely to be growing up in poverty. Half of all black children are growing up beneath the poverty line, and they are more than three times more likely to be excluded from school than their white peers and four times more likely to fail to gain any qualifications at age 16 than those who are not excluded.
The Government must wake up now to this crisis of child poverty and rampant inequalities that they are presiding over and commit to significant funding if they are to avoid creating a lost generation. The Government talk big about prioritising education catch-up while in reality cutting pupil premiums by stealth by £133 million, with nearly £1.5 million set to be cut from funds to support the most disadvantaged children in Liverpool.
Can the Minister look me in the eye and tell me how he sleeps at night when his Government have just cut funding for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children at this time of acute crisis? The Government show a complete lack of understanding about—or maybe a lack of willingness to see—the essential foundation that education sets for our country’s economic recovery. Lost attainment will translate into lower productivity, and if not tackled now, threatens to cost the economy upwards of £100 billion, with the impact greatest in disadvantaged areas.
To do justice to the next generation will the Minister agree here today to disclose all Treasury correspondence and evaluation of the proposals by the education recovery commissioner, and will he take up calls to appeal to his Government to put their money where their mouth is? That means having higher funding commitments per pupil, closing the digital divide, introducing smaller  class sizes, reversing the cuts to pupil premiums, providing free school meals during the holidays so no child goes hungry, and, most importantly, reversing the soaring levels of child poverty that have risen so drastically under a decade of Tory austerity cuts even before the pandemic.
Education is the key to pulling the next generation out of this poverty and providing them with better life chances. The Government have a duty to make education a priority coming out of covid; anything less threatens to create a lost generation.

Paul Bristow: One of the things that pleased me most about the Government’s response to the global pandemic was the fact that schools were the last institutions to close and the first to reopen, because the classroom is the best environment for children to learn in. The vast majority of teachers and their support staff in Peterborough agree about that and were champing at the bit to return. But of course, on social media and in newspaper columns, the Labour councillors in Peterborough scared parents, peddled conspiracy theories about the effects of covid on children and said that children should not return, which undoubtedly led to some parents keeping their children away unnecessarily, impacting on their future. I make no apologies for holding those councillors to account for that, and they undoubtedly took their lead from the national leadership of the Labour party, who repeatedly refused to say that schools were safe.
Today we are repeating a debate from the last week and there are just three points I wish to re-emphasise. The first is that Peterborough schools have coped well. We did come together in Peterborough to support one another during the pandemic. Schools played their part, but they will, as we recover, need support. That is why more money into targeted tutoring is welcome. That is why more money into teacher training support is welcome, and that is why more money into mental health is welcome.
Secondly, let us remember what the Labour party said about schools at the last election and what its priority would be if it were now in Government. Its priorities would be to abolish academies, abolish Ofsted, and abolish league tables. While we build back, Labour would tear down.
That brings me to my final point, and a point that I made last week. If Labour were serious about recovery, it would embrace with an open mind the idea about extending the school day. This would be welcomed by parents. It would improve physical fitness. It would improve the social skills of young people, and, of course, it would improve academic attainment. The buildings are there; they are open. Let us use them properly to catch up. I speak all the time to headteachers in my constituency who would back this and embrace it 100%. If it is good for them to embrace, then we should embrace it, too.

Alex Sobel: Like parents across the country, I have been more involved in the education of my two children—one at primary and one at secondary—than at any other time. I saw how the  schools did their best making the transition to home learning. Teachers’ workload increased. They had to teach face-to-face and support children learning from home. Schools were given woeful provision for those who did not have equipment for home learning. I could see how big the gap was, even for children like mine who had everything at home. Parents with deficiencies like me had to recall how to do quadratic equations or to explain what an adverbial is—do not ask because I still do not know. Our children falling behind, and falling behind in an interconnected world where knowledge and skills are the key to the future, is just not acceptable.
When the Government announced just £1.4 billion in catch-up funding, I was appalled, not just as an MP, but as a parent. As a parent and an MP, I want to know what reason the Government had for blocking Sir Kevan Collins’ proposal for our children’s education, and what assessment the Chancellor made of those proposals. I want to know why the Government are not delivering what is needed, and also why we are not delivering a world-class catch-up programme. Instead, the Government’s measly tutoring offering amounts to less than £1 for every day that the children were out of school over the pandemic.
Meanwhile, Ministers are throwing more taxpayers’ money at a failed tutoring programme that is reaching just 1% of pupils and that schools have said to me is difficult to use. In Leeds, we are already seeing a huge educational gap appear. As Councillor Pryor, our executive member for education in Leeds, said:
“Even before COVID there was a huge gap between disadvantaged pupils and those who were better off. Some of that is kids who have educational, care and health needs plans and some is kids in poor quality housing, have parents working two jobs and don’t have the same opportunities to help them all the time.”
I want to ask the Government today: where are the breakfast clubs and new enrichment activities for every child; where is the quality mental health support in every school; where is the funding for small group tutoring for all those who need it and not just for 1% of pupils; where is the continuity development for teachers who have had the most difficult year in the living memory of schools; and what about an education recovery premium supporting every child to reach their potential?
The Government also need to fulfil the promise that the Prime Minister made to Marcus Rashford to ensure that no child goes hungry. Under a Labour Government, no child went hungry. By extending free school meals over the holidays, including the summer break, they would not go hungry again. Our early years staff worked all the way through and without protection. Where is the package of support for early years, which has been starved of funding for years?
The Government must now commit to funding a proper programme with the measures that we are putting forward today and not fail a whole generation of our country’s children.

Kate Green: I am very grateful to all colleagues who have contributed to today’s debate. Sadly, however, they did not include the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a single Treasury Minister. It is always a pleasure to hear from the schools improvement Minister, but Labour did not call this debate for a repeat of what he said last week. I do not doubt the  importance that he attaches to children’s educational recovery, but he and, more importantly, the nation’s children and young people have been let down by a Prime Minister who, despite claiming that children’s education was his priority, has not lifted a finger to help them as they recover from the pandemic, while a parsimonious Treasury and a Chancellor of the Exchequer so economically illiterate that he cannot make the connection between children’s education and our country’s success and prosperity have refused to invest in their future. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) asked where was the Secretary of State for Education, but the question to which we ought to have an answer this afternoon is, “Where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer?”
The contributions made by my Opposition colleagues are a reminder of what the Leader of the Opposition has said—that education is the Labour party’s No. 1 priority. It has never been more important. The disruption of the past year has seen pupils miss half a year of face-to-face schooling; they have had half a year of time away from friends and teachers. That is of concern to every Member in the House. Every Member recognises that if we do not do anything to address the impact, the consequences will be huge for our society and economy, but most of all for our children. That is why Labour proposed a bold, multi-year, £15 billion plan to give children time to socialise, learn and develop, and so that we can invest in the children who need it most and support a world-class teaching profession.

Katherine Fletcher: Given that the hon. Lady has a multi-year plan, and that we need to give children more time in school, would she be willing to support an extension to the school day if properly costed and evaluated for effectiveness?

Kate Green: I do not think that there is an argument between us about the extended school day. We all agree about extra time; we all agree about the importance of a range of activities to boost social and emotional development, as well as learning. We all understand that those activities could include art, music, sport, homework clubs, reading groups, cooking and coding; some of those things were suggested by the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) in last week’s debate. The Chair of the Select Committee on Education said last week that we needed to use the time for a combination of catch-up and extracurricular activities to improve mental health and wellbeing. The problem is that we do not have that plan or those activities from the Government. All that we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) pointed out, is, despite all the noise, a promise of a review.
All that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) is suggesting is that we review whether an extended school day would be a good idea and how we should deliver it. It is hardly surprising that Sir Kevan Collins himself complained that the Government were acting too slowly. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, pointed out, they were acting so slowly that more than 300,000 children will have left school altogether before they have the chance to benefit from any proposals.
I am appalled by the complacency of the Government’s claims, beginning with those made by the Minister for School Standards, for whom I have the utmost respect. His complacency on the attainment gap was profoundly shocking. There has been no progress on narrowing that gap in the past five years; indeed, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), the pandemic has exacerbated it. There is utter complacency about regional disparities in school attainment, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Easington (Grahame Morris) pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington also rightly pointed out the loss that schools have suffered as a result of the Government’s pupil premium stealth cut.
On free school meals, for all the boasts of the Conservative party, it was only when Marcus Rashford stepped in—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) pointed out—that we saw action from a Government and a party that had previously suggested that supporting families with free school meals during the holidays would simply lead to mums going down the crack den. That was utterly disgraceful. Even now, the Government’s plans will cover only 16 of the 30 weekdays this summer.
We heard from Conservative Members that the Government had supplied digital resources, yet we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that families were having to study on mobile phones, so slow was the roll-out of laptops. As for the claims of a significant increase in school funding, with the £14 billion that we have heard about—following a decade of austerity that means that schools are now 9% worse off in real terms, the abandonment of the Building Schools for the Future programme, and a situation in which schools have been required to meet covid security costs out of teaching budgets, the Conservative party frankly has a nerve to suggest that schools are now doing fine financially. That is certainly not what headteachers are telling us.
The national tutoring programme, another boast from the Conservative party, is reaching fewer than 2% of children. As the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), pointed out this afternoon, it misses a substantial proportion of the most disadvantaged children.
In the Government’s plans there is nothing at all for disabled children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out. There is little—other than something in the teacher development package—for the early years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) pointed out. My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) also drew attention to the failure to invest in the school sports premium.
It is therefore hardly surprising that so many of my hon. Friends had to complain this afternoon that what we have seen from the Government, far from being generous funding for schools and for a recovery package, amounts—shockingly—to only 10% of what not only Labour, but the Government’s own education recovery tsar, Sir Kevan Collins, said was needed. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins),  for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Feltham and Heston, for Newcastle upon Tyne North, for Coventry North West, for Leeds North West, for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) all pointed out the massive shortfall in what is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), perfectly correctly, asked why, if the funding that the Government are bringing forward is sufficient, Sir Kevan Collins felt the need to resign. He, at least, was extremely unhappy.
By contrast, Labour has a plan to invest in children’s recovery and life chances, in their mental health and wellbeing, in their education and in the teaching profession. We have proposed billions of pounds of investment in breakfast clubs and in creating new opportunities and more dedicated time for children to play and learn at the end of the school day.
Children are optimistic and ambitious about their future and excited to be back with their friends and teachers. Their recovery from the pandemic deserves to be supported by the Government. That will be the defining challenge for Ministers, but tragically, from what we have seen so far, they are unwilling and unable to rise to it. After a year of unprecedented disruption, the Government’s response, as Sir Kevan said,
“is too narrow, too small and will be delivered too slowly.”
The Conservative party ought to be ashamed of the paucity of its ambition for our children, but today we are not even asking for a change in its policy or a U-turn on its inadequate plans; we are simply asking for transparency. We are asking the Chancellor, who has not seen fit to attend today’s debate, to come clean with Parliament and the public about why he blocked a plan for significant investment in children’s recovery. That is all that today’s motion does. I commend it to the House.

Vicky Ford: It is great to have the chance to stand up once again and summarise this debate on how we are putting children and young people at the heart of our recovery. My hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) described this as a groundhog day debate, but I thought we only got groundhog day once a year. However, we can never say thank you too many times to all those who have supported our children and young people, and to children and young people themselves, during this incredibly difficult time.
A number of Members spoke about experiences in their constituencies. Some named particular schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) gave particular praise to Wellfield School in Wingate, for reasons including its academy proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) spoke of Buxton Primary School and its interest in the environment. I am sure that every single one of us would like to say good luck to Lisa Ackley from Ormiston Horizon Academy and send our very best wishes for her place as a finalist for the TES award for the best classroom support assistant of the year. I would like to add my thanks to the year 8s from The Boswells School in my constituency, who put me through a right quizzing  on Friday. How come it is so much more intimidating when we are quizzed by our young people then when we are on “Question Time”? It is because they value that education and interest.
To address the specific motion before the House, I believe in transparency. The Government recognise and respect that this House has rights in relation to the publication of any papers, but the Government need to balance a commitment to transparency with the long-standing principle that civil servants and advisers can give candid advice, as well as the collective responsibility of Government. With respect to education and educational recovery, I want to be clear that this Government will do whatever it takes to give children from all backgrounds a first-class education and to overcome the impact of the pandemic. Far from what has been alleged by those on the Opposition Front Bench, that includes substantial investment from our Treasury.

Neil Coyle: The Minister says that the Government will do whatever it takes. Will the Government do what the commissioner asked for?

Vicky Ford: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what we are doing. The commissioner himself has praised the Government for the work that we have done, especially on the tutoring and teaching elements of his work. He also advised on extra time in education, on which we have announced a consultation.

Tan Dhesi: Perhaps the Minister would like to correct the record. Did she actually mean that the Government will do whatever it takes, or did she mean that they will do 10% of whatever it takes?

Vicky Ford: It is really important that we understand what Sir Kevan, who is a hugely respected man, was asked to do. He was engaged to provide advice and make recommendations, not to give a formal report. That is what he said to the Education Committee. We have worked on his advice, we have made those recommendations, and we are doing this deeper review.
Many Members have spoken of the record funding that is going into our schools, and before this virus hit, we committed to the biggest school funding boost in over a decade. That means that the whole schools budget will be over £52 billion this year.[Official Report, 6 July 2021, Vol. 698, c. 10MC.] The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) just intervened on me and made a suggestion that school funding is dropping. May I suggest that he checks his maths, as the cash funding and core schools budget in his constituency this year is going up by 4.7%, well ahead of the rate of inflation? The high needs budget is now over £8 billion. The pupil premium will be over an estimated £2.5 billion this year. That funding is targeted to support those eligible for free school meals. The £1.4 billion that we recently announced takes the investment in educational—[Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. It is getting a bit noisy on both sides of the House. We do need to listen to the Minister.

Vicky Ford: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), who served for nearly a decade as a school governor, spoke about the importance of targeting funding where it is most needed and has most  impact. The recovery funding is targeted at top-class tutoring and teaching because the evidence shows that it has a significant impact.
The Chair of the Education Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who is not in his seat, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) gave many numbers, most of which were right, but it is not actually £67 million that we put into local authority welfare assistance—it is £269 million, including ring-fenced funding for families to help with food and schooling.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) suggested that funding is not going into special schools or speech and language therapy, but I have visited special schools and seen first-hand how they are using the education recovery money to support children with complex needs, including through extra speech and language therapy.
Mental health is really important. Our wellbeing for education return scheme has provided free expert training for staff to help children who face trauma, anxiety and grief. We have just announced another £17 million of mental health and wellbeing support for schools, as well as the £79 million through the Department of Health and Social Care.
Over the past year, we have put in place mental health support for every school, extended free school meals to more groups of children than any other Government in the past half century, and put extra money into breakfast clubs and extra-curricular activities. Let me remind the House of Labour’s plan: it calls for mental health support for every school, extending free school meals, and putting more money into breakfast clubs and extra-curricular activities. I am glad that the Opposition are catching up, but in our schools our teachers tell our students that plagiarism is not okay. While the Opposition have been copying our homework, we have got on with the hard work of keeping children’s education on track.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) sounded a bit low. Can I recommend that he pops down to his local holiday activities and food scheme this year? It is being expanded all across the country. It enables children of lower-income families to take part in free holiday clubs and enjoy enriching activities. I have seen first-hand how these programmes lift the spirits of children and young people. I think it would really cheer him up. It leads to real, tangible benefits for our kids. The evidence shows that, by taking part, the wellbeing and mental health of young people has improved. We will be saying more about these exciting plans tomorrow, so I encourage Members to stay tuned.
Many Members have spoken about the benefits of tutoring, including the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North and for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), and many others on both sides of the House. I know that they will welcome the £17 million investment we have put into the Nuffield early language intervention, which is focused on children at reception age and in which 40% of schools are already taking part. It has identified a quarter of a million children for screening  and is providing one-on-one or small-group tutoring to over 60,000 four and five-year-olds. The most recent package of recovery funding also includes £153 million for early years practitioners.
We make these smart investments because we know from research that early intervention works. Early education is critical. Last year, we invested around £3.6 billion in early years entitlements, following record investment in early years before the pandemic. Over the past decade, we have improved the early years curriculum so that by the time children reach school they have the building blocks needed to learn quickly and effectively, as well as to foster a love of learning. I am enormously proud that the most recent time we assessed five-year-olds, nearly three out of four of our country’s youngest children had reached a good level of development. Back in 2013, the year for which the first comparable data is available, only one in two of our children achieved that good level. The House should remember that those are the children born in the last years of the Labour Government. To put it another way, back then one in every two of our children was falling behind; now, three out of four are achieving ahead. I therefore say again what I said last week and will repeat week after week: when it comes to supporting our children and young people, I will take no lessons from Labour.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 355.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Covid-Secure Borders

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I beg to move,
That this House believes that there must be a clear, simply understood and proper hotel quarantine scheme in operation at the UK border to minimise the risk of introduction of new variants into the UK; calls on the Government to immediately scrap the Amber List category of the Government’s Traffic Light System for travel and place all of those countries currently on the Amber List onto the Red List, whilst maintaining a tightly managed Green List, so as not to risk undermining the UK’s successful NHS Covid-19 vaccination programme; further calls on the Government to work with international partners to introduce an international vaccine passport allowing for the safe resumption of travel, to publish all data on international travel arrivals, and to provide details of the decision-making process on the Traffic Light System; and reiterates the need for a sector-specific support deal for aviation.
I rise to speak to the motion in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to be standing here yet again calling for this Government to act to secure our borders against the threat of new variants of covid. The news that the Prime Minister has announced a delay in the reopening on 21 June was a hammer blow to people across the country. Freedoms that have been denied us for so long seemed within our grasp, yet they have been snatched away. Let us be absolutely clear: the impact of what the Prime Minister announced last night is devastating, but it was not inevitable. That delay is happening because of the delta variant first identified in India, and the delta variant is here in such force because of lax Conservative border policy.
The fallout from that chain of events is enormous for pubs and restaurants that were desperate to open up properly again; for friends planning group holidays that have been ruined; for our towns and city centres hoping to have been bustling with workers again; for concerts, sports stadiums, theatres and festivals that were supposed to be filling up; and for families looking forward to great big get-togethers, celebrating milestones, birthdays, children being born and marriages. I want my thoughts today to be with all those who have seen their wedding plans turned upside down. I realise of course that weddings are legally allowed, but with singing and dancing banned, I do not think they will look like the parties that many of us know weddings to be.
This will be a desperate blow for so many people, and the cost of this delay will not just be felt in people’s disappointment and ruined plans. UKHospitality says that a delay of a month will cost its sector £3 billion in sales, with warnings that 200,000 jobs in the sector could go. Some 5,000 gigs are set to be cancelled at a cost of £500 million. Let us be absolutely clear: the responsibility for breaking the promise of freedom day lies squarely with this Conservative Government. The Prime Minister apparently says that his political hero is the mayor from “Jaws”, keeping the beaches open while swimmers were getting attacked. The truth is that he has let the shark take a huge chunk out of the British economy this week. People across the country have every right to be angry about being let down so badly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, through you perhaps I can echo the strong words of Mr Speaker yesterday in condemning the shoddy way in which the Government have treated this House on an announcement of national  importance. Our role is to represent our constituents, and the Prime Minister failing to make the statement to this House or to offer himself for questioning was, frankly, an insult.
Everyone knows that managing the pandemic is a huge challenge for Governments across the world, and of course the British public can forgive mistakes, but what is unforgivable is making the same mistakes time and time again, putting the health and prosperity of the British people at risk. As an island, our border protections should have been one of our strengths. Instead, they have been an Achilles heel. Time and again, I have stood here and warned that the UK Government’s border measures are far too weak, yet from the very outset of the pandemic, Government actions at the border have been too little, too late.
At the outset of the pandemic, just 273 people out of the 18 million that arrived here by air were formally quarantined between 1 January and 23 March last year—just 273 people from four flights. In fact, on 13 March last year, even the voluntary guidance that was in place on self-isolation when coming from parts of China and South Korea and from Iran and Italy was lifted. We have never had a credible explanation for that. All this came at a time when we saw the terrible scenes in northern Italy of hospitals being overwhelmed, when our constituents were contacting us and questioning why there were not better and more effective controls at airports, and when the Government’s own chief scientific adviser said that
“a lot of the cases in the UK didn’t come from China…they came from European imports and the high level of travel into the UK at that time.”
There is no point in the Government claiming that they have the toughest border protections in the world. In that same month, March 2020, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada and New Zealand restricted entry to residents and citizens and introduced a 14-day quarantine for all arrivals. It could be done, and it was done; it just was not done by this Government. I wrote to the Home Secretary in April 2020 to ask her to learn the lessons from that, but still the UK remained an international outlier. In May 2020, the UK stood with only Iran, Luxembourg and the US Virgin Islands in having no border protection measures in place, and that, I am afraid, has been the story of the pandemic at the borders.
This Conservative Government have been late to formal quarantining. It was not introduced until June 2020, and even then only 3% of the people meant to be quarantining were successfully checked. The Government have been late to mandatory border testing, which was not introduced until January 2021, and late to start hotel quarantining, which started in February 2021 and even then covered only 1% of arrivals. They have been late and lacking in strategy, with no proper plan, just lurching from one position to another. It is no wonder that the border policy of this Government has been a tale of systematic failure. The Government did not so much leave the back door open to covid and its variants as leave the front door open the whole time.
Let me pay tribute to Border Force, the police and our wider law enforcement community. They have worked heroically. The gaps in our defences that have existed and do exist are not their fault, but the fault of Ministers. That chronic failure has been crystallised in the utter  mess over hotel quarantining. On 1 February, we on the Opposition Benches forced a debate and a vote on covid security at the borders. I said that day:
“Labour is calling for decisive action today through a comprehensive hotel quarantine policy, and that would mean a policy of enforced quarantine restrictions on arrivals…Failing to adopt that policy risks undermining the huge gains that have been made by the vaccine roll-out, threatening life and hope.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 753.]
I then asked:
“How on earth can the Government be assured that the measures will prevent emerging strains from countries outside those on the red list? The truth is that the Government cannot answer that question. As a result, the policy is fatally flawed. A comprehensive quarantine policy would give us the best possible chance of preventing a new strain from undermining the astonishing collective sacrifice of the British people.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 755.]
It gives me no pleasure to say it, but that new strain is exactly what came to pass.

Huw Merriman: How long does the right hon. Gentleman think his policy of scrapping the amber list and moving everything to red, hotel quarantine, would last? He says it is to deal with the risk of new variants being introduced into the UK. That risk could last indefinitely, so does that mean that his border closure would, by its very nature, also be indefinite?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Absolutely not. I have said, and it says in the motion, that there should be a growing green list now. The reason we are unable to grow the green list to the extent that we want to is the danger being created by the ambiguous amber list, by people mixing at airports, and by the mixed messaging from the Government about whether people can actually travel. It is not the fault of the people who are travelling. It is the fault of this Government with their mixed messaging.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to take action. The Prime Minister promised some of the toughest border measures in the world—but we had another example of what defines this Government: overpromising and underdelivering. Instead, they have let people down and delivered a complete mess. It was the Government’s short-termism and refusal to take tough decisions in time that has led to us ending up in this situation. When we called in February for comprehensive hotel quarantine measures in February, the Government Members did not even turn up for the vote—not one of them is shown has having voted in the Lobby.
Let me be clear. We want to get back to safe international travel as soon as possible, but we have to protect the gains of the past 14 months, which have been secured by the sacrifices of the British people. Yes, the comprehensive quarantine policy is tough politically; it is a message a lot of people did not want to hear, but it was necessary to keep variants out. Advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies was that it was the only measure that would work, and the Government’s chief scientific adviser said:
“You’ve got to go hard, early and broader if you’re going to get on top of this. Waiting and watching simply doesn’t work.”
Yet the Government ignored the warnings, time and again.

Claire Coutinho: The right hon. Gentleman talks about a tougher border policy to keep out variants. Can he explain why the delta variant is present in Australia?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Because nobody can provide 100% protection against anything—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Conservative Members jeer, but it is about time they took a bit of responsibility for the failure of their Government. They argue with me about comprehensive hotel quarantine, but not one of them had the courage to vote against it in the Lobby in February. They have completely failed to put in place every possible measure that they should have implemented. That is a comprehensive failure.
Between 6 January, when the third national lockdown in England began, and the end of April, 1.59 million people flew into the UK. Only a tiny percentage underwent hotel quarantine. Most damaging of all was the abject failure to add India to the red list in time. Even if the Government had refused to introduce hotel quarantine, which they should have done, it was clear that more countries needed to be added to the red list. Pakistan and Bangladesh were added on 9 April, yet the Prime Minister waited 14 more days before adding India. Civil Aviation Authority figures suggest that at least 20,000 passengers who might have been infected with the delta variant arrived from India between 2 and 23 April—a staggering number. It is unbelievably reckless that on his list of priorities, the Prime Minister put having his photograph taken with Prime Minister Modi ahead of protecting jobs and the safety of this country. Nobody is blaming people who travelled when they were permitted to do so. The blame lies with the UK Government for their unjustifiable delay.
Last night at the Dispatch Box, the Health Secretary claimed that he took a decision based on the evidence available to him at the time. On 1 April—the day before he says he took the decision—India recorded the highest one-day spike in 2021. It was hardly a secret; it was on newspaper front pages. Cases were surging, and there it was—publicly available—but it seems it did not prompt him to act. It has also been reported that on the same day, Ministers knew about the delta variant being discovered in the UK, but that did not prompt him to act either. The Government must now publish the risk assessments that were done on India by the Joint Biosecurity Centre, so that we may have maximum transparency on exactly how that disastrous decision to delay was made.
Last night, I heard the Health Secretary claim that we on the Labour Benches called for India to be added to the red list with the benefit of hindsight. What nonsense! If the Conservatives had listened to us on the Labour Benches and voted with us, protections would have been in place from February. I have the Hansard, and the Health Secretary can check the facts in Hansard, if he wants to. Let us hear no more about hindsight. We want Ministers to show some judgment and foresight.

Andrew Bowie: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Government listening to the Labour party and taking your advice, but had we done that, last year we would have listened to the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), when the Labour party was calling for the  Government’s quarantine measures to be lessened. Had we listened to you, we would have had fewer restrictions at the border than we have at the minute.

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use the word “you”.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that, because he is talking about the Government’s own failure. Last summer, the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), and I were speaking about the fact that 14-day quarantining was unnecessary if we had testing up and running. We could have had a test and release system with release after 10 days. We were highlighting the complete failure of the Government on testing, so I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman gave me the chance to make that point.
I give Ministers another warning. As we speak, countries with large numbers of delta variant cases are on the amber list, which has been proven clearly not to work in stopping infections reaching the UK. Thailand and Vietnam are on the amber list, despite having rocketing cases and, potentially, yet another new variant that has already entered the country. Thousands more are on flights coming and going from holiday destinations across the world. Again, we put the Government on notice: put in place proper covid protection at the border to end the culture of failure that has been their record so far.
That is why, today, we are forcing a vote again on securing our borders. The Government must take clear steps to avoid the disastrous mistakes of the past: scrap the amber list and move it on to the red list with the proper hotel quarantine system; continue to have the green list, which can grow safely over time; work with our international partners to introduce a universal, worldwide, standardised international vaccine passport; and introduce the long-awaited sector support deal for the aviation sector, called for many times by my hon. Friend the shadow Transport Secretary, saving jobs and ensuring environmental protection.

Jim Shannon: Stobart Air, which has connectivity between Belfast City and many cities across the UK mainland, is on the edge of collapse—indeed, that will happen. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is important to give the aviation sector the help that it needs to ensure, when we come back, that there will be something that we can build upon?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to see a proper ambitious support package, with the money properly targeted to meet its aims.
Appalling hire-and-rehire tactics should be outlawed—that practice has no place in our country—and we need staff salaries protected, with a clear commitment to workers’ right. Let us also see a commitment to cleaner fuels, UK-based suppliers, tax paid here in the UK and compliance with consumer rights regulations. Inaction—continuing inaction—is not the answer. Those are steps that could be taken right now. They would reduce the risk of yet more variants reaching the UK.
When people are working so hard to contain the delta variant at home, this Government run the risk of bringing in yet more from abroad. The irresponsibility has to stop. Up and down the country, people have done their bit. They have given up their freedoms, queued up for the vaccine, given up precious time with loved ones, abandoned planned family events and sacrificed attendance at funerals. They have done all they can to protect the country; the least they can expect in return is that Members of Parliament will do the same by supporting our motion to ensure that we can secure our borders from covid variants, allowing lives to return to normal in the near future.

Nadhim Zahawi: I welcome today’s debate on a matter that is, rightly, of significant public interest. It is slightly disappointing to hear the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) being found out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) for really not understanding how viruses spread. If we are going to live with this virus, there will be variants. He has been asked over and over again, “What would you do?”, and unfortunately he has been found failing. Throughout the pandemic this Government have taken all the steps necessary to protect the public and help prevent the spread of the virus.

Jim McMahon: Absolute nonsense.

Nadhim Zahawi: Well, we shall see. As of today, 30 million-plus people have had two doses. We are at 72 million doses in the United Kingdom, and we aim in the next four weeks to offer the double dose to two thirds of all adults. That is delivery, my friend.
Sometimes taking all the steps necessary means making difficult decisions—not that the Labour party understands these things—such as the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of the decision, informed by the data, to pause the move to step 4 of the road map. We are clear that the public expect a clear message that these decisions are based on the science. Public health has always been our No. 1 priority and we will not risk throwing away our hard-won achievements through the vaccination programme that have only been possible through the work of the British people.
Being led by the data and the science has also informed our approach at the border. The Government have put in place some of the most stringent covid border measures in the world. Each of the measures that we have put in place—informed by the latest scientific advice—adds layers of protection against importing the virus, including through reducing the risk of importing new variants.

Tobias Ellwood: May I just praise the work that my hon. Friend is doing? It has been an incredible journey to vaccinate this nation. With his leadership, the team that he has put together have done a massive job. We all know that the way to get out of this dilemma is to vaccinate, so I pay tribute to him for what he has done.
We have spoken much about the Indian variant. Would my hon. Friend take a second or two to talk about a new variant that is coming on the horizon—the echo variant—which has been seen in Nepal?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that we have to remain vigilant. Part of the reason why the decision was made to place countries such as Portugal on the red list, unfortunately, was because we are seeing further mutations from the Indian variant to the variant that has first been spotted in Nepal. That is why we have invested so heavily in our genome sequencing capability and capacity in the United Kingdom. In many instances, we are able to identify variants in travellers from those countries before those countries actually identify them.
The really important point to land is that no single measure can remove the risk entirely; I think it is on this point where the real division lies between the two sides of the House. However, each layer of protection that we have introduced helps to reduce the risk and protect the hard-won progress that we have seen, including for our world-leading vaccine programme. Let me set out for the House some of those measures, which include our clear r assessment of the risk posed from overseas, as set out in the traffic light system; our approach upstream at the border, including the vital work carried out by Border Force staff; our robust in-country measures around enforcement and managed quarantine; and the world-leading scientific expertise informing our entire approach.
The traffic light system essentially categorises countries based on risk, in order to protect public health and the vaccine rollout from variants of covid. The Joint Biosecurity Centre produces risk assessments of countries and territories. Decisions on red, amber or green list assignment and associated border measures are taken by Ministers, who take into account the JBC risk assessment alongside wider public health factors.
The JBC’s risk assessment includes a number of critical factors, including the general epidemiological situation in a country, and the presence and prevalence of known variants of concern, or new variants, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has just pointed out. Genomic surveillance capability is critical to the second issue, and the reality is that many countries cannot match the UK’s world-leading capability in that field. We have been open about this approach, and indeed a summary of the JBC’s methodology has been published on gov.uk, alongside the key data that supports Ministers’ decisions.
The rules are firm but fair for passengers arriving in the UK. Red country arrivals must quarantine in a managed quarantine facility for 10 days and take tests on day 2 and day 8. Amber country arrivals must self-isolate in their own accommodation and have a test booked for day 2 and day 8. For green country arrivals, no quarantine is required, but they must have a test on or before day 2 after arrival. All passengers from red, amber and green countries must have a negative pre-departure test. In the interest of continuing to protect public health, the public are advised against leisure travel to countries categorised as amber and red.
Upstream, the success of our travel system relies on everyone playing their part. Carriers have a key role here and are under a legal obligation to check that each passenger has proof of a negative test. They are liable for a fine of up to £2,000 for not complying. The Civil Aviation Authority has issued 630 fines since 1 February to airlines carrying passengers without the right documentation. International arrivals from red countries are required to arrive at designated ports.
Border Force works tirelessly to check all passengers coming into the country. It is continuing to ensure that it has the right level of resources to carry out its duties, maintaining border security and public health, while trying to minimise wait times at the borders at all times. To put that in context, we currently have the highest level of staffing since the 2012 Olympics.
We have been taking steps to significantly improve and speed up processes at the border by digitising a number of checks, including the passenger locator form so that it can be used at e-gates. Those automated checks happen behind the scenes, meaning that people may not be asked to show their passenger locator form to a Border Force officer, but that does not mean that the checks are not happening. However, we have been clear with the public and industry that queues and wait times will be longer if passengers have not completed the necessary requirements to enter the United Kingdom.
Our border measures are backed by a robust enforcement regime. As of 8 June this year, there had been 328,860 amber quarantine compliance visits by a service run by the Home Office, as well as over 600 fines for breach of home isolation. The Home Office runs a service to check that amber arrivals are in fact quarantining at home or other appropriate locations.
We have also taken strong steps where travel from certain countries poses a particularly acute risk to the United Kingdom. On 15 February, we introduced a managed quarantine facility for those arriving from red list countries. That list is under regular review, and we have taken the decision to add countries to the red list to help prevent the spread of variants of concern to the United Kingdom.
All international arrivals from red list countries are expected to quarantine in a Government-approved hotel for 10 days. Before flying, they need to pre-book their hotel, and their testing package for day 2 and day 8 tests, on a Government booking system. They are not allowed to use the test-to-release scheme for early release from quarantine. Those measures are kept under constant review, including the important impact on individuals with family ties in other countries.

Andrew Jones: The Minister has outlined the protections that are taken, and the work that has taken place has been very impressive. Will he just explain a little more some of the separation arrangements in airports themselves—those points of transit where people come together?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: as of 1 June, Heathrow has introduced a red list country terminal. Of course, all airports and ports have a responsibility to ensure that passengers arrive and are separated safely when entering.
I am proud that we are also protected by our world-leading genomic sequencing capability, including testing those positives that are discovered on entry. That allows us to analyse the test results of arrivals to identify any new variants of concern as quickly as possible. It not only helps us at home to protect ourselves, but helps the rest of the world, too. It is this world-renowned sequencing capability that informs the traffic light system, allowing us to take swift informed decisions to protect public health. That is something we have not shied away from doing, even in the most difficult of circumstances.
Recognising the strong strategic rationale and success of the vaccine programme, we have commenced work to consider the role of vaccinations in shaping a different set of health and testing measures for inbound travel. Individuals in England who have had a full vaccine course will be able to demonstrate their vaccine status through the covid-19 vaccine certification for outbound international travel, while border health measures at destination countries will be set by the receiving country. Those requirements will be set out for the public to check entry requirements before travelling.
In closing, this Government understand the importance of international travel to the UK public and the success of the United Kingdom itself. We are determined to ensure that the United Kingdom restarts international travel in a safe and considered way, when the science tells us the time is right to do so.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The Minister talks about international travel going forward, and it is obviously important for the Government to be as open as possible. Will he give a commitment from the Dispatch Box that the risk assessments on India that were done by the Joint Biosecurity Centre will now be published by the Government?

Nadhim Zahawi: The right hon. Gentleman continues to hark back. Let me give him some details: on 23 April, India was added to the red list; on 29 April—that is, seven days later—that variant became a variant of interest, not a variant of concern, and at that very point, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care insisted that we take further measures because of his concern; and it was on 7 May that that particular variant became a variant of concern. This Government will not take any lectures from those on the Opposition Benches.
This Government understand the importance of international travel to the UK public and the success of the UK itself. We are determined to ensure that the UK restarts international travel in a safe and considered way when the science tells us that the time is right to do so, and I repeat that message because it is an important one to land. The global travel taskforce, led by the Department for Transport and reporting to the Prime Minister, is working across Government and industry to do just that.
We have made enormous progress this year in tackling the pandemic across our country. That progress has been hard-won in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, and it is vital that we do not risk undermining it now. This Government will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that our response, including on international travel, continues to meet the challenges that covid brings us.

Stuart McDonald: I start by commending the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), the shadow Home Secretary, and his colleagues for bringing this important debate to the House. His motion makes some important, very solid points with which we agree. We need clear, simple to understand and proper hotel quarantine restrictions to minimise as far as possible the introduction of new strains. Secondly, measures introduced at the UK border have not worked as we all  would have wanted, and the Government need to improve how the scheme is operating. There needs to be transparency on decision making and the data used.
There has to be international co-operation and discussion of how vaccine passports might support the return of safe travel, and there is absolutely a need for a sector-specific support deal. On the suggestion that we move immediately from a full traffic light system to a red and green system, it is fair to say that we could be persuaded. That is something that could be looked at, but we would first need to see the expert advice on that issue, including the view of the JBC.
Before I expand on two or three of those points, let me pay tribute to and thank all the staff—Border Force and others—who are working as hard as possible to try to keep us safe at the border in what are incredibly difficult circumstances. Along with other members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, last week I had a chance to visit Heathrow airport, where we spoke to airport and border staff. They are doing their best in difficult circumstances, and we thank them.
Turning to the motion, of course we need strong border measures, which should include clear, simple and robust systems for self-quarantine as required. Almost every country in the world has used border measures to help to control the virus. As the Minister rightly pointed out, that is only one part of a wider and larger strategy for disease control but, nevertheless, it remains a crucial part of the overall effort to combat covid.
The second key element of the Opposition motion deals with the fact that the UK’s border measures have, on several occasions, fallen short, and the covid pandemic has been worse in the UK as a result. That was, for example, true last year when, as countries around the world were tightening restrictions at the border, the UK went from 13 March to June with essentially no additional requirements for restrictions on arrivals beyond what was imposed on the population as a whole. The Home Affairs Committee has reported that the 10 days prior to lockdown were a particularly disastrous period, during which huge numbers arrived in the country bringing huge numbers of cases with them.
Similar mistakes were made earlier this year. When the strong advice was to put a comprehensive health quarantine system in place, that is what the Scottish Government did. The UK Government took the wrong approach—a different approach—and have deservedly been pilloried for their delay in putting India on the red list of countries for which hotel quarantine is required. The consequences are there for all to see, with the Delta strain dominant, increased infectiousness and increased resistance to a single vaccine dose knocking weeks off our recovery.
Linked to those mistakes and, indeed, perhaps a key cause of them, is a lack of transparency about decision-making processes and the data that have driven them. When the Home Affairs Committee repeatedly asked to see the advice that justified the UK lifting measures for travellers 10 days before lockdown last March, what followed was months of obfuscation and stonewalling. Similarly, it has been hard to see the scientific justification for delaying hotel quarantine for arrivals from India—certainly, in terms of published figures, there seems to be absolutely none. In both cases, we are left to conclude that the basis was shaky and, in the latter case, more  likely driven by the Prime Minister’s planned visit to India and trade ambitions there, rather than health implications.
The serious consequences of the failure to add India timeously mean that full disclosure and transparency are merited, but we are a long way from seeing that. Indeed, the Minister’s response to an intervention from the right hon. Member for Torfaen illustrated that perfectly. Going forward, further requirements, including quarantine, will continue to have a crucial role. Again, we need full disclosure and transparency about decisions that have been made so that we can understand them, interrogate them and hold Government to account. At the moment, the impression is of constant battles between the Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care in which scientific advice and public health are not always the deciding factor.
Turning to the suggestion that we move immediately from what is a full traffic-light system to a red and green system, as I said at the outset, it is fair to say that we could be persuaded of that case, but we are not persuaded yet. Our position simply is that Government should make decisions based on data and expert scientific advice. Those in government must not hesitate to challenge pushback and interrogate recommendations, but decisions must follow the outcome of such discussions, not prejudge them. If the data show, and the advice from the experts is that a red-green system is the right way to go, we are open to that. All that we are saying is that such changes need to go through a proper system of scrutiny and development first.
There clearly have been significant challenges to the use of home quarantine. During our visit to Heathrow, it was clear that border officials were fully stretched checking passenger locator forms and other requirements, even with a comparatively low number of arrivals. The capacity to cope with any increase in traffic must be seriously questioned, and we need to hear much more from the Home Office about how it is going to respond to that challenge.
There are limits to what checks and forms can realistically be completed at the airport. Few phone numbers or addresses have been checked, which creates difficulties for any in-country enforcement. Surely, there must be ways to check phone numbers and addresses, even before someone steps on to a plane to come here. There is no reason why that cannot be looked at away from the border, and anything that can help frontline staff and make the amber list work better must be considered. Challenges in airport mixing have rightly been raised, and were still present when we visited Heathrow last week. Terminal 4, the dedicated terminal for arrivals from red-list countries, is absolutely welcome, but it does not completely fix the problem, because of the related problem of indirect arrivals from red-list countries, which highlights another problem: passengers from red-list countries who have been mixing on indirect flights with passengers from amber and green-list countries. The challenges remain.
As we look to the future, and hopefully to recover, we could, and probably should, have a full debate on the role of so-called vaccine passports and their implications, but their use and requirement for international travel is   simply a fact of life. It is important that the Governments of all the UK nations remain involved in discussions with international partners on how they should work, to set standards and to address ethical challenges that arise.
The motion also rightly points to steps that need to be taken to protect the aviation industry and to support its gradual rejuvenation. That is why, for example, the Scottish Government decided to extend the 100% non-domestic rates relief for the aviation sector for yet another year. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has repeatedly made the case for further targeted support from the UK Government in terms of furlough, taxation and direct support, but the response has been underwhelming to say the least.
The UK Government have been weak on restrictions at key points, weak on transparency and still are today, and indeed weak on sector support. It is essential for public health and to protect jobs that they up their game very quickly.

Rosie Winterton: There is a five-minute time limit in place. A few colleagues have withdrawn from the debate, so I will try to keep it at five minutes for as long as possible. Obviously, the clock displays the time count, and for virtual contributions it is on the screen. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman.

Huw Merriman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the issues that the international travel and, indeed, the health regimes face. I do so in a somewhat perplexed state, because normally I am very critical of my Government’s approach for being too cautious, but here I find that the Opposition motion is even more cautious and, in my view, would finish off the international travel industry, which is already on its knees.
What I find perhaps most galling about the motion is that all the measures that would compromise business, having no regard for those who have worked so hard and lost their job in the sector, can just be swept up in the last line, which refers to
“the need for a sector-specific support deal for aviation.”
The international travel industry does not want to be bailed out; it wants to be able to get on and do its job. It is all well and good for the Opposition to put that line in at the end as the catch-all, but it is effectively saying, “We will make you bankrupt, but don’t worry—we’ll appoint a receiver for you.” Frankly, I find it very disappointing indeed.
I am sorry that the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), has moved away, because I was hoping that he might intervene to clarify something. When I asked him about the effectively perpetual state of the red list, with the amber list being scrapped, he stated that, under the motion, the green list would be grown. In fact, the language is that the Opposition would maintain
“a tightly managed Green List,”
so it does not seem to indicate that at all. I ask the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), if he is listening, to clarify  whether the countries currently on the amber list, such as Malta and the Balearic and Greek islands, would move to the green list or move to the red list, resulting in quarantine.
It is simplistic in the extreme to constantly cite Australia and New Zealand as an example that this country should follow. We are an island trading nation. It is extraordinary listening to the Opposition, whose contributions in this debate I compare with those over the past couple of years in all the debates on Europe, when they said that we could not divorce mainland UK from our European Union partners because of trade and our close links. Yet all of a sudden we can throw a ring of steel around ourselves and have everyone—I assume that means the 10,000 heavy goods vehicle movements that come into this country delivering our trade—put into a red quarantine list and therefore into a hotel.
If everyone is not to be put into a hotel, we have just punctured the ring of steel, in which case what is the point in bringing the international travel industry down? Why not have the halfway house of an amber list, as the Government do? Then we have testing and mitigations in place, but at least allow travel to occur. As soon as we puncture the ring of steel there is no point in having it at all. That would be my point to the shadow Transport Secretary.
If we reduce flights virtually to zero, because no one will travel on them if they are all going to hotel quarantine, that ignores the fact that 40% of our trade comes in the belly of passenger planes, so trade will not come through either. That then results in more trade coming through on more lorries, which of course increases the risk, so there seems to be no logic to that at all.

Jim McMahon: indicated dissent.

Huw Merriman: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; I look forward to his responses. I hope he pays some regard to my comments, as I am very critical of my own side too. I am accusing him of trying to have it both ways—of trying to show some support to the international travel industry while closing it down, and of suggesting that we can close our borders down, Australia-style, while ignoring how our country interacts and works with Europe. I do not buy it for one minute, and I am afraid to say that it strikes me that the Opposition are showing a bit of red meat to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator, rather than trying genuinely to help the international travel sector recover while balancing health concerns.
That leads me to my last point. This motion seems to ignore the fact that we have a world-class vaccine that has been rolled out. In Sussex, 85% of those in cohorts 1 to 9, the over-50s, have been given both doses. We should be talking about the future and giving optimism and positivity and some signs of milestones to unlock people from the threat of job losses in the international aviation and maritime sectors, giving people hope that they will be able to see their loved ones. I ask the Opposition please to focus less on baseline politics and instead to focus on the industry—stop thinking that they can throw a blank cheque at an industry that wants to get back to work.

Yvette Cooper: We are in this situation now because of the delta variant: there are over 40,000 cases across the country, up from just a couple of hundred two months ago. Without it, the covid rate would by now be very low and pubs, cafés and clubs would be back to normal, but because of the delta variant the Government are having to be careful and we are having to take more time. This was not inevitable and it was predictable. Ministers could have slowed things down and given more time for the NHS to get the vaccine rolled out by putting India on the red list earlier—weeks earlier. They could and should have taken a precautionary approach. They did not do so, however, and in those few weeks in April hundreds of people with covid arrived from India with, it is estimated, hundreds of separate cases of the delta variant.
Ministers are saying that they acted as soon as they had the information to do so, but they did not. Even when they finally announced that India was going on the red list, they inexplicably delayed for a further four days—but why? They allowed dozens more packed flights to return and people to go home to family and friends, accelerating the spread of the delta variant.
More importantly, there were serious signs way before then. Covid cases in India were already accelerating in March, up from 11,000 a day at the beginning of the month to 80,000 a day by the end, and doubling again by 9 April. That alone should have set alarm bells ringing. Canada was warning about high rates of covid cases on flights from India by 20 March. We are told, too, that the delta variant was first identified in the UK on 1 April; I hope the Minister will confirm in replying whether that is true.
The Government have said that they were acting slowly because they did not have the full case-positivity data on people arriving from India for several more weeks afterwards, but that is a nonsense argument, because we know that that data does not tell us what is happening now; it tells us only what was happening several weeks ago. We could not afford to wait for several weeks when we already had the evidence that the India cases where accelerating fast. We know that the Government were reluctant; we know that they wanted to wait until the last possible minute so that the Prime Minister could make his planned trip to India, but the lesson of covid is that we cannot wait until the last possible minute; we have to act early.
If the Government are confident that they took the right decisions, why are they still not publishing the advice and risk assessments from the Joint Biosecurity Centre, which the Home Affairs Committee called to be published back in August last year? Why the secrecy? The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies papers are all published, so why not publish the Joint Biosecurity Centre analysis? They should publish it on Portugal, publish it on other countries—publish it on all countries across the world so that we can have proper, transparent debate about the risks and challenges and what action needs to be taken. It would be far better to do that.
Why will the Government also not recognise some of the weak points in the current amber home quarantine system that the delta variant has exposed? People with the delta variant travelled home under the amber system  and the variant still spread, in part because people can travel home by public transport from the airport without any test on arrival and can go home to their friends and family, who do not have to self-isolate or even get tested. By the time the asymptomatic traveller tests positive, their flatmates or friends could have been in work or in shops, which means that new variants can spread.
Time and again I have called on the Government to learn from the South Korean model of home quarantine, which has tighter rules. I still believe that they should learn those lessons in order to look forward with a sustainable approach as international travel opens up. The real tragedy is that, time and again, they have not listened and learned. In the first wave, we had no covid border measures in place for months; as a result, an estimated 10,000 people arrived and accelerated the pandemic at an earlier stage. It is reported that, during the summer, people returning from summer holidays in August and September contributed to the second wave, because we did not have a proper testing system in place at the border.
We now face a new challenge because of the new variants and the failure to put India on the red list. The Government need to learn these lessons: first, we need much greater transparency so we can have a proper and open debate about where the risks are; secondly, we need a better surveillance system so that we have up-to-date data rather than waiting for any lags; and thirdly, we need to strengthen the quarantine system so that we can prevent new variants from spreading. People have done their bit across the country to support the vaccine programme. Now the Government need to do their bit and not let people down at the borders.

Justin Madders: Let us cast our mind back to January 2020, when we were first learning about the new virus. I remember the approach taken at the time to people coming in from parts of the world with a higher number of cases, because many of them were quarantined just down the road from me at Arrowe Park Hospital. No chances were taken then, but all that stopped very shortly afterwards: we carried on as normal, welcoming people—and the virus—from all over the world. We saw images from Spain of cases rising, yet Atlético Madrid fans were still allowed to enter the country for a champions league game in early March, contributing to an increase in cases and—according to one study—to an additional 41 deaths.
Perhaps some latitude can be given because at the time we were dealing with a new virus, but I find it hard to reconcile the actions that were taken with arrivals from Wuhan, where we knew that there was an outbreak, and from Madrid, where we also knew that there was an outbreak. Hardest to reconcile is the fact that, while the country was in lockdown from March last year onwards, thousands of people were still entering the country every day.
Turning to more recent events, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the reason that the full unlocking of the country is not going ahead is the decision to  delay putting India on the red list, which has led to the delta variant rapidly pushing up case numbers. All that good work and all the benefits of the vaccine were blown because the Prime Minister was once again too slow, just as he was too slow with the first lockdown, the second and the third. His incompetence has cost this country dear.
I know that the Government will say that they acted as soon as they could on the information that they had, but I do not accept that. The only data that they have released on the Indian variant shows that they should have acted sooner. Indeed, the explanation for why they did not act sooner has shifted in the past few days, as we have heard again today, from the data not supporting action to the variant not having been identified as one of interest or concern. That is not the explanation that was advanced originally; nor does it explain why Pakistan and Bangladesh were treated differently.
The Health Secretary told the House on 19 May that when the Government decided to put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list two weeks before India, it was because positivity rates were higher. He said:
“The positivity rates…were 1.6% in India and 4.6% in Pakistan”.—[Official Report, 19 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 732.]
That seems a fair enough reason—except that I cannot find those figures anywhere. Indeed, the Government’s own figures on the variant show that in the period from 25 March to 7 April—the closest period to when the decision was made—the positivity rate was 3.7% for Bangladesh, 5.1% for India, and 6.2% for Pakistan. Those are nowhere near the figures cited by the Secretary of State.
That is not the only data that contradicts the Government’s claims. Their own data on the number of variants that they detected from those countries in the period from 25 March to 7 April shows that they detected four from Pakistan, 12 from Bangladesh and 50 from India. Actually, we did not even need data to know what was going on—we could just turn on the TV to see what was happening in India.
The only credible explanation that I can find for treating India differently is that the Prime Minister did not want to scupper his trade visit and photo opportunity with the Indian Prime Minister. It is no wonder that he does not want to come here in person and explain to the House why his road map has been put on ice, because it is his own vanity and his own incompetence that has led us to where we are today.
Does the new traffic light system give us confidence that the Government finally have a system in place that manages risk? Well, not really, as we have had Ministers contradicting themselves on that as well, particularly on travel advice. This is what happened in just one day following the announcement on international travel reopening: the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that people could fly to amber-list countries if they wanted to visit family and friends; the Health Minister in the other place said that nobody should travel outside Britain at all this year; and the Welsh Secretary said that some people might consider holidays abroad as essential. The following day, the Prime Minister set another definition. He said that people should travel only in extreme circumstances. That is four definitions in 24 hours, which is the nub of the problem. Everyone can have their own view on what  is essential, which means that there is an ambivalence at the heart of Government policy that this virus can exploit.
For the past year, we have painstakingly legislated for every facet of our lives: when we can leave home; what time we have to leave the pub; and how many people can attend a funeral. On international travel, though, we seem to have a free-for-all.
Finally, I just want to say a few words about the absolute shambles that the Government have made of the day 2 and day 8 testing for those quarantining at home, with hundreds of people who book covid tests from firms that are listed under the Department’s own website complaining that they have either not received those tests, or that they have not received the results on time. These private companies, some of which did not exist at all last year and have zero experience in this area, are benefiting from an open-door policy from Government, because it seems that they can request to be added to the list of approved suppliers on the Government website simply by self-declaring that they meet the minimum standards required.
I find it absolutely astonishing that we are operating one of the most critical parts of our defence in such a reckless way. Fewer than 10% of those companies actually turned out to be accredited, so the Government really do need to do something to tighten that up as well.

Wendy Chamberlain: During the covid pandemic, it is vital that we have ways to manage our borders to allow for travel where it is safe, as well as protecting our population at home. However, this motion talks about the UK’s borders, but we know that the position is not that straightforward.
International travel has sadly been yet another example of a failure of our four-nations approach to tackling the pandemic across the UK. Until very recent weeks, different rules were in place across the four nations, with travellers from some countries arriving in England and being able to quarantine at home, while those arriving in Scotland, for example, needed to quarantine in a hotel. Even now, when we are seeing an alignment in the traffic light system, confusing as it is, there are differences with Scotland. For example, it does not have a test to release scheme. Just because Scotland has done it differently does not mean that it has always done it better. The Scottish Government, like the UK Government, acted too slowly last summer, failing to protect against new variants entering the country or to set up a test, trace and isolate infrastructure effectively to prevent a second wave. During that time, the quarantined travellers’ spot-check target was missed for four months in a row, which was highlighted by my colleague and friend the MSP for North-East Fife.
What we have seen across the UK is no clarity or certainty, which is exactly what is required to enable public confidence. There is no clarity or certainty for the tourism industry or for those wanting to reunite with family members abroad who see a narrative of desperate holidaymakers and watch others here with their loved ones. There is insufficient support for those who need to isolate and still not enough funding available for tourism businesses that have no customers. This is not just about vaccine success in the UK. UK-inbound  tourism is vital to North-East Fife, particularly in relation to golf, which I have highlighted several times in this House. This lack of clarity and certainty devastates the industry, with cancellations in 2020 and now in 2021.
Most of all, a lack of a meaningful four-nations approach leads to confusion. If people do not understand the rules, or do not understand why the rules are different across the UK, despite best intentions, they end up not following them. I was contacted by one constituent, a seafarer, who was subject to different rules and quarantine, depending on where he returned to in the UK. He was reaching out to my office in the hope that I could provide clarity, but there are simply inconsistencies. We see the risks of that confusion now as the delta variant, which many have already spoken about, has quickly become the most prevalent variant across the UK in recent weeks.
If the UK Government had worked properly with the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and taken a more joined-up approach, clear rules could have been agreed and adhered to consistently. This problem will not be solved until the covid-19 pandemic has been tackled globally, and although I welcome the UK Government and G7 pledges on vaccinations, they are simply not enough. Until the pandemic is tackled globally, we need to find a way for safe travel, proper border checks, clear rules and support for those who need it, and to do that in the UK, we need the four nations working together.

Tobias Ellwood: There almost comes a time in these debates at which points are repeated. I shall approach the debate from an internationalist and security perspective.
I intervened on the Minister and mentioned the echo variant. It is absolutely worth stressing the incredible capabilities that we in the UK have in genome sequencing, which mean that we can identify how this virus is changing, but the new variant illustrates how versatile it is in adapting and mutating again and again. We talk of imposing border controls, but we still know so little about this virus, which is why we had five-week increments for easing the restrictions. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) mentioned in another intervention, even the toughest of border measures in Australia cannot contain its movement.
From a biosecurity perspective we need to learn more about the virus. I take this opportunity to stress the importance of asking China to open up its doors. We still do not know who patient zero was or where ground zero was. The World Health Organisation team was denied access for more than a year. It could not interview the original patients and certainly was not allowed properly to visit the Wuhan Institute of Virology, about which so many questions have now been raised.
The pandemic has shone a light on how frail our world order currently is, with countries retreating from global exposure and becoming more independent, international organisations almost paralysed in their ability to help, and the two most powerful nations—the biggest superpowers—clashing in a war of words rather than collaborating and working together. I therefore congratulate the Government on their G7 summit. The west has been distracted and there has been a lack of  unity, but it is starting to regroup, as reflected in the G7 communiqué, which prioritised the need to end the pandemic and prepare for the future. It recognised how OECD countries must help by driving an intensified international effort to vaccinate the world by getting as many safe vaccines to as many people as possible, as fast as possible. The UK is leading that approach through the COVAX initiative, which is absolutely to be welcomed.
At the same time, the G7 will create the appropriate frameworks to strengthen our collective defences against threats to global health by increasing and co-ordinating global manufacturing capability on all continents, improving the warning systems and supporting science to shorten the cycle for the development of safe and effective vaccines. If we do not do that, it will not be the echo, golf or hotel variants but something further down the line that affects us and prevents us from finally turning our back on this pandemic.
The Prime Minister was right to extend the road map, which was created back in February and was always going to be subject to conditions. It was written well before the Indian variant emerged but with new hurdles in mind. In announcing any road map, there is always the risk of disappointment if we have to deviate from it. That is the toughest of calls for any Government to make, with the nation so understandably exhausted and eager to return to normal. The incredible vaccination programme has given us a sense of security and perhaps optimism that we can move forward, but the impact of the Indian variant must be taken seriously, as should the echo variant, about which we still do not know much.
I stress to the Minister and the Government that it is the vaccinations that will get us out of here. I absolutely applaud the work that we are doing internationally, but can we start to move, in September, to vaccinate teenagers as well? Finally, so many people want to travel abroad, so can we co-ordinate efforts and join a travel system with our European partners so that if someone has had two vaccines, they can travel unimpeded and holiday abroad?

Mike Amesbury: The delta variant, commonly known as the Indian variant, did not just miraculously appear on our shores via an act of God. It arrived because our borders were open to hundreds of people infected with it. That is a fact. We only had to switch on the TV to see the horrendous tragedy unfolding in India for all the world to see, yet despite the scientific advice—and, indeed, the call from those on our Front Bench way back in February—the closure of that border and those restrictions were not introduced until 23 April. Curiously, as has been mentioned in this Chamber over and over again today, both Pakistan and Bangladesh were put on the red list some two weeks earlier. That timeframe counts and that decision counts.
The Indian variant is now our variant, accounting for over 90% of cases. A strain identified in an outbreak in the Northwich part of my constituency is now spreading at an alarming rate throughout Cheshire, the north-west and our nation. Hospitalisations have now started to creep up, and we are in a race against time to jab to save lives, while local leaders in Cheshire, Merseyside, Halton  and Warrington are pleading for more vaccine supplies. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) referred to teenagers now being a priority, and I concur with that plea.
This did not, of course, have to be the case, and the finger should be pointed firmly at the door of No. 10 and the Prime Minister. It was his desperation to secure a trade deal on his planned trip to India that meant this followed the photo opportunity, not the data. Not only has this incompetence thrown us off track, but it could cost even more lives and livelihoods. The hospitality sector in my constituency is clinging on by its fingertips, with pubs, restaurants and the night-time economy having that hope upon the horizon shattered by the gross incompetence of this Prime Minister and Government. To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are now refusing to extend targeted support to the sector. These callous decisions are putting people out of business and out of jobs.
In conclusion, from Northwich to Runcorn and from Frodsham to Helsby, people in my constituency will remember, and the judgment day will come. No more benefit of the doubt—the truth will truly set us free about this absolute shower of a Government.

Lee Rowley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the debate this afternoon. I rise to speak not because I do not accept that coronavirus has created acute and challenging issues on the border, not because there are not difficulties and constraints for many people around the UK who either need or want to travel abroad and not because there are not real challenges for the aviation and transport sectors caught up in a maelstrom created by one of the most unprecedented times in our lives—there are and I absolutely accept those challenges and those difficulties, which I do not think anyone in this House would question. However, the question for this place today is not about that; it is about what the Government could do and what it was reasonable and proportionate for them to do.
In a year of difficult decisions, border policy is a particularly difficult one to get right. Too prescriptive and the United Kingdom runs the risk of withdrawing unnecessarily from the world and of leaving its key role as a member of the international community, all for limited to no economic, societal or health benefit and, compounding that—which then creates an effective Catch-22—the UK’s approach would in effect be determined by things that it does not have primary responsibility over. On the other hand, too laissez-faire, and we run the risk of squandering the great advantages we have built with vaccinations.
Given that tremendously nuanced and sensitive situation, one would hope that border policy could be determined and discussed with a similar level of nuance and sensitivity, but this is of course an Opposition day debate, and as has been the case for the four years I have been in this Chamber, such hopes are dashed each time. Frankly, the illogical arguments we have heard so far from the other side of the Chamber—so eloquently outlined by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), who is no longer in his place—are more a reflection of how this is just another political stunt than a serious  attempt to scrutinise the Government, hold them to account or provide constructive attempts to improve the policy.
In the coming weeks, we are going to be one of the first large countries in the world to be pretty much as vaccinated as we can be. In time, that should, and hopefully will, open up new opportunities so that in the coming period, when we are going to need to work meaningfully to properly restart parts of life such as international travel, we should be looking at broadening the tools at our disposal, recognising new ones and accepting that we have a set of balanced judgments to make.
Knowing full well that this is the situation, what does the Labour party propose? Not nuance, sensitivity or thought, but instead, exactly the opposite: the removal of one of the tools—one of the lights of the traffic light—that allows us to take different approaches for different countries, dependent on different situations. We can debate which countries go into which traffic light colour, but surely it is reasonable that there can be more than two options for international travel in the coming months as we try to get it going again.
Secondly, if the Labour party does want a completely binary proposition for international travel, which, by default, can be only no travel or travel, perhaps it could articulate how that is sustainable over the long term and what criteria it would apply to flick the switch from “Don’t travel” to “Do travel” with nothing in between. For countries where the risk is reducing, do we keep them on the red list longer than is necessary for no advantage to our country, or do we move them to the green list in advance of us being totally comfortable with them being there?
If the amber list is going to be abolished, how do the Opposition propose to resource that? Hotel quarantine is a difficult policy and one that appears sustainable at only a relatively small scale. As places such as Australia have shown, there is challenge and unintended consequences within that—people who cannot get home, important family or medical trips that are difficult to go on, and so on. Will Labour stop British citizens coming to the UK, and could Labour Members explain how they are seeking practically to make a policy work that is already strained for a country of 20 million people with 20 million visits and which they are now apparently seeking to try to apply to a population of 70 million, with 145 million visits?
There has also been a liberal sprinkling of references to the arrival of the Indian variant in the UK, starting with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and then the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. There have been nebulous suggestions that this could have been prevented with greater border control. That is just not correct. The Labour party appears to be arguing with science. The Indian variant was here on 22 February, a full month before even the Indian Government highlighted to the international community that there was a variant. Borders were closed 22 days before the World Health Organisation declared the strain a variant of concern. Right now, according to GISAID, on a small sampling, the variant is dominant in Russia, Canada, Indonesia, Pakistan and Malaysia, and is on its way to being dominant in the USA, Japan, Thailand, Portugal, Luxembourg, Bangladesh, South Korea, Qatar, Finland and most  likely many other countries. If the Labour party has a viable proposition for international travel, I would like to hear it, because it has not been articulated yet.

Naseem Shah: Time and time again, the Government have shown catastrophic failings during the pandemic. The pandemic was not inevitable, and no one could predict such things, but when the rest of the world was closing its borders and placing their nations in lockdown, our Prime Minister was boasting about shaking the hands of covid patients. This was not inevitable.
It was the Labour plan to have a comprehensive quarantine policy to protect our nation’s efforts and the vaccine roll-out from variants entering from across the world, but this Government failed to listen and implement the policies that we needed. As early as 16 March, I was aware that cases were rising in countries such as Pakistan and, therefore, I submitted a written question to the Department of Health and Social Care asking for the latest data, the Government’s criteria in placing countries on the red list and whether countries such as Pakistan would be placed on such lists. I received no response to that question. On the same day, I put out a statement to my constituents who had questions about travelling to countries such as Pakistan. I made it clear that cases were rising, and that I presumed that Pakistan could be placed on the red list. I reiterated the advice to travel only if absolutely necessary. As a constituency MP, I was able to provide this advice to my constituents on 16 March.
Again, on 30 March, days before countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh were placed on the red list, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary, asking him to provide the scientific data before such countries were placed on the red list. In the letter, after listing the rates of infection in countries including France and India, I said:
“Given the data, it would be fair…to conclude the following: the Government doesn’t have a coherent strategy in dealing with the red list, and the Government isn’t serious about protecting the British public, as it is applying decisions led by politics, not data.”
Days later, on 2 April, the Government placed Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list, and not India. It then took the Government a further 14 days, after media pressure, to add India to the red list. Figures suggest that at least 20,000 people who could have been infected with the delta variant arrived from India between 2 and 23 April.
This is not an “I told you so” moment, because whether it is the delta variant or the “Johnson variant”, as was trending on Twitter last night, the reason for the delay in reopening is not that the British public have not played their part, not that the NHS staff have not worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic and have not done enough, not that the key workers have not risked their lives to keep our economy going, and not that my constituents or those of other Members across this House have not made huge sacrifices: the reason we are here today is simply because our Prime Minister was more interested in following the politics of—[Inaudible]—that would protect our nation’s efforts throughout the pandemic. Now this nation is paying the price in freedom because of our Prime Minister’s self-interest and utter failure. The real tragedy is that we have a Prime Minister whereby failure and callous decisions are inevitable time and time again.
The Minister gave some dates—India being placed on the red list on 23 April and then the Indian variant not being a concern until the week after the 27th. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I would argue that that argument is complete and utter nonsense. We are either being led by the data or led by it only when a variant becomes of concern. The truth is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) outlined very eloquently, that the numbers in India and Bangladesh were lower when they were both placed on the red list.
What is the science? What is the data? What have the Government got to hide? Why cannot they just publish the data from the Joint Biosecurity Centre analysis, because that is all we are asking for? We have a right to know—the public have a right to know—for how long this Government are going to take us for mugs and give us an argument that just does not stack up. The public are not stupid; people are not stupid. We see through this. The Government can give their spiel, as they often do in this Chamber, but the truth is that it was either about the science or the politics. There is no other conclusion that anybody can draw but that the science was supporting the closure of India and putting it on to the red list, and our Prime Minister failed because he put politics before the security of the people.
I urge the Minister at least to publish the data, and not to hide behind arguments that simply do not wash.

Rosie Winterton: Order. We have a withdrawal at No. 14 on the speakers list. I will try to put the limit up to six minutes for a while and see if we can manage. It might have to go down, but we can do that for a bit.

Jack Dromey: The calamity that we have witnessed in recent days is because of the Government’s botched handling of the delta variant. This was not inevitable, but a failure of this Government to act swiftly and without dither or delay against the variant. Indeed, this whole sorry saga is a culmination of blunder after blunder in the Government’s protection of our borders during the pandemic. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was right to point to the repeated making of mistakes. This should not have happened. As an island nation, we should be better than this. Instead we have seen a Government too slow on quarantine at international arrivals, too slow on border testing, and too slow to put India on the red list. It took 22 days between the Government knowing that the delta variant had entered the UK and India being placed on the red list. All the while, the delta variant has spread throughout the country.
The consequences for public health are serious, but so are the consequences for British businesses, not least those in the hospitality industry in Birmingham. The managing director of one events company said that this is
“having a huge impact on my business”.
Another said:
“We understand the need to ban events but the uncertainty and short-term plans from the Government have really hampered any recovery”.
And another said that extra support from the Treasury would be vital because without it
“further job losses are inevitable and ultimately an entire industry will collapse.”
This is the key reason why the Government’s failures will be so costly to British business and British workers.
Thus far, the Chancellor refuses to support those businesses whose suffering will be prolonged because of the Government’s blunders on protecting our borders. Just how can the Government expect those struggling events businesses in Birmingham that have been closed for the past 15 months to be able to pay, for example, 10% of their employees’ wages when they are still unable to operate as normal? UKHospitality has been particularly critical, saying that a failure to act could see the industry suffering a loss of £3 billion and put up to 200,000 jobs at risk. That problem is particularly acute in the constituency that I am proud to represent, because the unemployment figures out today show that we have twice the national average unemployment. I always say that my constituency is rich in talent but one of the poorest in Britain. It will be hit hard with job losses as a consequence of this.
It beggars belief that, after the trauma of the past 15 months, good businesses and good jobs face going to the wall because the Government have thus far refused to support them for the final weeks of restrictions. I say “thus far” because one of the key reasons behind the motion is that we eminently hope that the Government will act in terms of financial support at the next stages. We hope that the House will vote for the motion, because it is about the interests of the British people and their health, welfare and safety, and about protecting British jobs. Without the proper protections at our borders, we run the risk of future variants threatening the road map for relaxing restrictions further, and the devastating impact that that will needlessly inflict on businesses and workers.
In conclusion, our focus is twofold. It is on the interests of British business—of that there is absolutely no doubt, because it matters—but it is also on the health, wellbeing and safety of the British people, because the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. I fear that unless the Government get a serious grip of this situation, they will put their responsibility to the British people in jeopardy.

Jack Brereton: I am pleased to speak in this debate about secure borders during the pandemic. Measures to limit international travel are obviously vital in reducing the risk of importing cases to the UK from countries where covid-19 remains high. It is right that we take a cautious approach, and the traffic light system is the right one. It is relatively simple to understand as we look towards some international travel returning, although it is clearly beyond the understanding of the Opposition. It remains vital that we continue to take a data-led approach that is regularly reviewed, with restrictions on those countries where the risks are higher, to ensure that we can protect the UK from further outbreaks and variants as we continue to benefit from the incredible efforts being made by those delivering the vaccination programme. I would like to thank each and every one of those who have been involved in the vaccination programme, particularly the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend  the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who has made a huge effort to ensure that we vaccinate people as quickly as possible.
Strict measures are in place to protect our borders, with significant fines for those who do not follow requirements for testing, isolating and completing passenger locator forms. I know that efforts are being made to further streamline and integrate checks with existing border security measures. Some have questioned why India was not put on the red list sooner, and although I have some sympathy for that view, the reality is that the virus often evolves faster than many countries are able to detect it. It has already been pointed out that the genome-detecting capability in this country represents almost half of the global capability in genome detecting. As has also been said by a number of hon. Members, India was on the red list before the delta variant even became what is known as a variant under investigation, let alone a variant of concern.
Like all Members across the House, I have many constituents who have had travel plans put on hold or cancelled altogether due to the restrictions on international travel. A number have struggled to get refunds from operators and turned to me for help. Clearly, travel companies are under huge pressure, but it is only right, as the Government have made clear, that people should be refunded when their plans have been disrupted due to covid. The Government have provided £7 billion of support to the aviation sector during the pandemic, and they have also suspended the requirements around slots.
The Government have advised against travel to amber list countries except for essential reasons. It is clear that people should not be travelling to amber or red list countries for a holiday. Of course, many will be impacted by that, but it is right that the amber category remains, to allow some limited travel to continue to those countries at medium risk, recognising that people do not only need to travel for holidays but may have more pressing reasons to make journeys outside the UK.
That has presented a challenge for some when operators continue to run services and make it difficult for people to change their plans or get refunds. I am helping a number of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South in that situation at the moment, and I will continue to do so. I have also had a number of constituents struggling to return from Pakistan after visiting friends and family. The requirement to isolate for 10 days, while totally necessary, has been particularly challenging for some with ill health or some medical conditions. While I applaud the efforts to rapidly deploy and set up a system for those needing to quarantine, I am sure it will continue to improve. I particularly hope that the process for approving those who need exemptions will be further improved to ensure quicker response times, especially for those needing medical treatment back here in the UK.
I want to finish by mentioning an issue that is of particular concern to my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South: the breaches of our border security in the English channel by illegal migrants. In attempting to cross the channel, they risk not only their own lives but those of others by potentially bringing the virus and new variants with them. I thank the Home Secretary for the robust action she has been taking to address the appalling criminal people traffickers who enable those dangerous journeys, and I fully support the Government’s new plan for immigration to address this issue.
We must deter those who think that they can come here illegally with no consequence, and reduce the pressure being put on places such as Stoke-on-Trent. We have resettled more than most other parts of the country, while many have not taken in a single refugee. As I set out recently in a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, it is time for Opposition Members to stop grandstanding and actually do something. Just as they attempt to score political points on the issue of asylum, they have tried to play exactly the same game over international travel, repeatedly changing positions on borders throughout the pandemic and shamefully exploiting the benefits of hindsight.

David Linden: The coronavirus pandemic has thrown up unprecedented challenges for us all, from adapting to home working and home schooling to the new restrictions that we have all had to live with and, of course, missing time with our loved ones. That is not to mention the hard work of key workers who have faced this pandemic and seen the very worst of this deadly virus. But as more and more of us get vaccinated every day and the end of the pandemic is in sight, we have to proceed with more caution than ever.
It seems to me that undoubtedly the biggest threat to our recovery from the pandemic is the emergence of new variants that not only are able to spread faster but, it is feared, may be resistant to the vaccines at some point. The vaccination programme is our way out of this pandemic, and to jeopardise that is nothing short of reckless.
A report published by Public Health England outlined that more than 90% of new coronavirus cases across the UK originate from the delta variant. The report stated that the delta variant is able to spread quicker, with cases of the virus doubling between every 4.5 and 11.5 days. Additionally, the delta variant has been found to increase the risk of household transmission by 60% compared with the alpha variant. To prevent any further variants, which may be even more threatening, it is vital that the British Government put in place clear testing and isolating rules for international travel. Fundamentally, that means stricter border control.
Time after time, the British Government have been slow to respond and late to act. Whether it was the countless flights landing in the UK from Italy in March 2020, the laissez-faire approach to the P.1 variant ravaging Brazil, or the delta variant, which has caused so much devastation in India and right across the world, each and every time, the UK failed to secure the border.
The fact is that the UK has continually made mistakes over travelling during the pandemic. In December last year, the UK Government announced their business traveller exemption, whereby business travellers did not need to self-isolate when returning from a country not in the travel corridor. That decision was utterly irresponsible and further highlights the UK Government’s ad hoc guidance throughout the pandemic. Only days later did the Prime Minister announce that people across the UK should not travel for the Christmas holidays, and the plans originally set out were revised and reversed due to rising cases. On top of all the obvious public health consequences, this policy underlines how the British Government have put forward one rule for their “high net worth” business mates and another for the rest of  the public. The policy perpetuates the cronyism and inequality that have become symbolic of this Conservative Government.
In Scotland, we have put in place clear rules on international travel, employing a traffic light system which is informed by risk assessments prepared by the Joint Biosecurity Centre. The assessments take into account the state of the pandemic in each country across the world and give consideration to variants of concern. The Scottish Government will continue to take decisions that they consider right for Scotland and will not sign up to decisions that might put that progress at risk.
This haphazard Vicky Pollard-like approach to border control has highlighted one of the major deficiencies in the current constitutional settlement in these islands. An independent Scotland would have full control of its borders and not be subject to the whim of the British Government’s ad hoc decisions. The end of the pandemic is almost in sight. After an incredibly difficult year for so many of us, we need to tread carefully as we recover from this virus. We in Scotland are clear that, when we have recovered from coronavirus, it is vital that the ability to choose Scotland’s own future in every aspect of policy, including border control, be in the hands of the people of Scotland. Westminster is not working for Scotland. This latest farce perhaps highlights that better than any SNP leaflet ever could.

Angela Richardson: It is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate. I will start by paying tribute to UK Border Force, NHS Test and Trace, ministerial colleagues and officials in the Departments for Health and Social Care and for Transport, and the Civil Aviation Authority, and by saying a huge thank you to airline and airport workers, many of whom live in my constituency of Guildford and work at the nearby Heathrow and Gatwick Airports. They have all worked incredibly hard in their roles to keep our borders secure while, crucially, making sure that the importation of vital food and medicines, important to our citizens, was not disrupted.
It is also important that we thank all our constituents who have followed all the measures laid down by the Government when they needed to travel. They are not all going on a jolly or on holiday; a lot of them, including colleagues of ours, have had to travel to deal with serious issues in their personal and family lives, such as bereavements, and on their return they have done a great job of complying with every measure the Government have set out.
The enormous success of our vaccine roll-out is the route out of lockdown, and I welcome the short delay in moving to step 4, as that will give us the opportunity to double jab those in their 40s and to give every adult at least one jab. I encourage everyone to take up the offer of a jab when it is made, even if their age group has already been called and they have not got round to it, because so far the vaccines are proving to be highly effective against each of the variants, including the most prevalent delta variant, and hopefully will be against emerging variants, such as the echo variant mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).
The motion before the House starts:
“That this House believes that there must be a clear, simply understood and proper hotel quarantine scheme in operation at the UK border to minimise the risk of introduction of new variants into the UK”.
It is clear. My constituents understand it. My daughter, who has been working abroad this year—I know I do not look old enough to have an adult daughter, Madam Deputy Speaker—understands it as well. She is to return in three weeks, and this morning I was talking to her about all the tests that she has to undergo if she is to return here and then reintegrate into society, and to ensure that she does not put anyone else at risk. This is something the vast majority of our constituents do.
Having spent the first 24 years of my life in New Zealand and Australia, I have been watching closely to see what they have been doing because I have family and friends there. I care deeply about this country and my constituents, and about my friends. I have seen that, even with the tightest security on the borders, virus still gets in—it just takes one case and the virus spreads. We ought to be careful about making international comparisons because not everywhere has been able to deal with the virus very effectively and we do have secure borders.
Protecting public health is our priority as we reopen international travel safely. We will maintain 100% health checks at the border to protect our constituents. We have some of the most stringent border measures in the world. Border Force will check every passenger who arrives at the border to ensure that they have complied with the health measures, take the mandatory 10-day quarantine for those arriving from amber countries and have a managed facility for those from red countries. Our red, amber and green travel list is reviewed every three weeks. If we take out the amber, it is not really a traffic light any more, is it? But we will not hesitate to act sooner if the data suggests that that is necessary. At each stage where we have had the emergence of variants and have had to act quickly, we have taken decisive action to update the list.
Today, Labour is playing political games again. Last year, Labour was flip-flopping all over the place. When we decided to shut our borders, the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), called it a “knee-jerk action” and
“the introduction of a 14-day, blunt-tool quarantine with almost no notice”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 850.]
I do not think anything we do would please Labour, but what are we doing? We are securing our borders, vaccinating our citizens, gifting vaccines to the world and recovering our economy so that we can build back better from the pandemic. We have a plan for jobs; Labour’s motion today would cost aviation jobs. While Labour is playing political games, this Government are getting on with the job of ensuring that we recover from the virus.

Paul Blomfield: This Government talk a lot about control of our borders, but their actions on covid-19 tell a different story. We would almost certainly be in a better place, looking forward to the planned removal of further lockdown measures next week, if the much more transmissible delta variant had not become dominant so quickly. It did so because the Government did not act swiftly enough to place India on the red list and I think they know that.
A month ago, I asked the Health Secretary whether the decision to delay putting India on the red list—despite Pakistan and Bangladesh being added with lower daily infection rates—was influenced by the Prime Minister’s imminent visit to India and his desire to secure a trade deal. At that time, the Health Secretary told me that it was because more testing was being done in India, so the case rate per 100,000 in Pakistan and Bangladesh was likely to be inaccurate. Yesterday, he changed tack, telling the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), that it was because the delta variant had not been designated a variant of concern or investigation at the time. Today, the Vaccine Minister added new reasons. Perhaps it would be better if the Government just admit they got it wrong, as Members across the House know. In doing so, let us learn lessons and apply them to some of the issues coming up over the next period.
In that context, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international students, I would like to make a genuinely helpful proposal, which enjoys cross-party support and to which I hope the Minister will respond in winding up. Because of the excellence of UK universities and the success of the Government’s global education strategy, which I am pleased embraces many of the recommendations that the APPG made, we can anticipate substantial numbers of international students arriving in the UK for the new academic year in September.
We cannot know exact numbers at this stage, because places have not yet been confirmed, but in the last academic year more than 500,000 international students were enrolled at UK universities. Of those, more than 100,000 were from what we would now designate as red-list countries. Recruitment is strong for the coming year, so we can anticipate that that there will be many new students coming from those countries in September. There will also be many who are continuing their studies—those who have been learning remotely and want to return to the UK.
On Friday, the Home Office updated guidance for student sponsors, confirming an extension to the date by which international students must be in the UK to qualify for the graduate route and a temporary removal of the 28-day rule for students applying for an additional course. It is now advising both previous and new cohort students to be in the UK by 27 September in order to be eligible for the graduate visa route. This threatens quarantine chaos.
The Government have not confirmed the current capacity for red-list quarantine facilities, but when the list was introduced in February capacity was reported to be about 4,600 rooms across 16 hotels. Even if on a conservative estimate—I think it is conservative—just one in five of the cohort similar to the last academic year arrived this September, we would be looking at more than 20,000 students from red-list countries arriving here and overwhelming quarantine capacity by a ratio of four to one; that is if we are still in the same position in September, although let us hope we are not.
Ministers should be working with universities to build partnerships with local hotels to offer quarantine and extend capacity, but there is also an urgent need to avoid the surge of students coming to the UK at one time in September. This would easily be achieved by further extending the tier 4 visa flexibility; allowing international students, particularly the 2021-22 cohort,  to study via distance and blended learning; and offering a further extension to the date required to qualify for the graduate route, preferably until Christmas 2021.
That is all that is needed, but Ministers must make a decision now because universities are already issuing CAS—confirmation of acceptance for studies—numbers for visa sponsorship, and students will be applying for visas, booking flights and arranging accommodation. There is not the space to make decisions in the days before arrival in a way we have seen in the past. Failure to make those decisions now will not only destroy the hopes of students whom we want to welcome to the UK; it will also sabotage covid-19 border security.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of making the decision urgently and respond to the comments that I have made, and that we will see a further update to the guidance as a matter of urgency.

Alex Davies-Jones: I am grateful to be called in this debate and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).
Time and again throughout the coronavirus crisis, we have seen delays, mistakes and U-turns from the Government. The shambolic last-minute approach to the border policy has fundamentally put people across the UK at risk. The Government were too late to start formal quarantine, too late to start testing at the borders and too late to add India to the red list, even when all the evidence suggested that they needed to act swiftly. More than a year down the line, we continue to feel the impact of the delays and the Government’s utter incompetence.
The delta variant is now the dominant strain in the UK, with 29,000 cases reported in one week alone. Ministers simply cannot say that this has taken them by surprise or that they did not have time to act. The Government knew that the delta variant had entered the UK on 1 April, yet it took them 22 full days—more than three weeks—to move India to the red list. They also cannot say that they were not warned. Time and again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and many other Opposition Members urged the Government to act swiftly, and time and again they were ignored. During this delay, at least 20,000 people, many of whom could have had the delta variant, arrived into the UK from India.
I am very pleased to see reports today that two doses of both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines provide more than 90% protection from hospitalisation with the delta variant. It would be remiss of me not to put on the record my sincere gratitude to all the incredible staff and volunteers, who have worked extremely hard, especially in Wales, to vaccinate our population. In Wales we have a world-leading vaccination programme, and every adult has been offered at least one dose of the vaccine. However, the Government’s ongoing failure to get a grip of border policy opens us up to the very real and very dangerous possibility of vaccine-resistant covid strains.
The amber list causes chaos and confusion for my constituents. The last-minute change in Portugal’s status left people paying huge amounts of money for flights with little notice, and many were left panicking about invalid insurance and insufficient protection from the  UK Government. Even once back in the UK, the situation is no better. We have all heard the horror stories and the all-too-frequent cases where the quarantine system has failed our citizens. I have heard in depth from one of my constituents, who has recently returned from the United Arab Emirates. He outlined the many steps that he has taken to keep himself and others safe, which include following local guidelines, having two vaccinations as well as a vaccination booster, weekly PCR tests and antibody test results—the list goes on.
However, all my constituent’s efforts seem to have gone to waste, as there was no control system of social distancing in place while he was in transit to Amsterdam. Despite travelling from a red list country, upon his arrival at Birmingham airport he was free to mix and collect his luggage with all other passengers. Surely more thought needs to be put into those logistics. The Government simply must see the error of their ways and immediately bring an end to their haphazard, last-minute, catch-up approach to border policy.
I feel a great deal of sympathy for those with family living abroad. Many will have gone more than a year without seeing their loved ones, and I can only imagine how hard that must be, but we must be cautious. We cannot risk further lockdowns and further deaths, especially when we consider the huge sacrifices that people have made in the last year to follow the rules and to bring down cases.
As we wait for travel to be safe again, let me once again plead with the Minister to work with his colleagues to introduce proper sector-specific support for the aviation industry. GE and British Airways in my constituency of Pontypridd have already had to make significant staffing cuts, but staff are worried that there are more to come. While trade unions such as my own, Unite, are doing their best to support workers in the industry, their warnings to the UK Government have been dismissed and ignored.
We really are at a crossroads. While I am grateful for the positive work on the vaccine roll-out, and the work of our fantastic NHS across the devolved nations, enough is enough. I urge the Minister to hear our pleas and work with colleagues across Government Departments and across the House to act now to bring an end to this utter chaos.

Mark Fletcher: It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate, and a particular pleasure to follow my friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), although I do not think that she will be surprised to know that I did not agree with all her points. However, I was particularly struck by her tribute to the roll-out of the Welsh vaccine. I share her praise for all those who have been involved in the vaccine roll-out, which I think is a success of this brilliant British Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) started her eloquent speech with a wonderful tribute to various professions that have helped to keep our borders safe and our travel industry going in the form in which it has needed to operate in covid times. I fully endorse the list that she gave in her wonderful speech.
The borders policy that we have implemented as a Government is proportionate to the risks that we face at the moment. It is a sensible policy. As time has gone on, we have implemented a clear quarantining policy. We have a traffic light system that, if we took out amber, may not be a traffic light system. We have a passenger location form system in place, and I was very pleased to see recently that we have increased the number of checks on those who come into the country to ensure that they are where they say they are. Of course, we also have the testing regime. Those of us in the House who were involved in that in April last year will remember when the number of tests that we were doing was minute. The way in which we have grown the testing system in this country is phenomenal. It has been a huge success for all the scientists, Government Departments and businesses involved.
I am a little reluctant to stray into this “toughest border policy ever” argument and to play political ping-pong on who can sound the toughest on borders. I appreciate, after all that happened from 2016 onwards, that the Labour party would like to gain some credibility on that front.
We are in danger of not acknowledging that the world in which we operate is based on risk. The reason why we call what was previously known as the Indian variant the delta variant is that it is the fourth variant to become particularly significant. I have concerns about the proposals outlined by the Opposition, because we will face other variants in future. We will face situations that shift, and over time we will have to learn to live with covid, in whatever form it takes, as we have learned many times in the past to live with different diseases. If we go down the route of making our border policy the toughest ever, that will have a huge impact on various industries, whether aviation, tourism or the travel sector.
Many of my constituents work in those sectors. I think of the pilots who have come to me and said, “Please let us fly out.” I think of all my constituents who want to go on holiday, but cannot do so at the moment—and quite rightly. I worry that, over the next few months and even years, if we play the game of “We can sound toughest on borders”, we will not act in proportion to the risks that we face. That is particularly significant in relation to yesterday’s announcement, because we are well ahead in vaccine policy and roll-out in this country. We will be in a position where we can live with covid, and we will have to learn to do so. Everyone will have to make decisions about the risks that we face.
I am also concerned about the “toughest border policy ever” approach, because this is complicated, and we need to acknowledge that the side-effects of just sounding tough make things difficult for other industries. Are we really suggesting that we should reach a point where we cannot import vaccines or food supplies? If we go down the route of playing the game of who can sound toughest, is that the kind of side effect that we want to have? I have had constituents who have been stuck abroad in the past year or so, all of them in incredibly legitimate circumstances. Many of them were in incredibly vulnerable states, and we were able to return them. Travel is not necessarily, as many of my colleagues have said, about going abroad for a jolly. There are reasons why people need to travel, and we need to be really careful about nuance and the unintended effects of the proposal that we are debating.
I shall conclude with the proposal at the end of the Opposition motion on vaccine passports for international travel, which has some merit. I am concerned that it will be discriminatory for young people. We are looking at a policy that favours certain demographics over others, and will have a particular effect on certain countries. I suggest that, again, further consideration and thought need to be put into what the Opposition are asking for today, which is why I do not support the motion.

Jerome Mayhew: We have a number of weapons with which to fight covid. The key one is the vaccine programme, on which even Labour is struggling to criticise the Government’s performance. There is an additional weapon, which is the control of our borders, to minimise the importation of additional infection and new variants from elsewhere.
What is the right policy to apply to international travel in the midst of a pandemic? A knee-jerk reaction would be to close our borders, and to sound tough on covid. Labour now talks of a ring of steel, but sensible Government need to recognise that no modern trading country can totally prevent new covid variants from crossing borders. Even a country as geographically remote as Australia, which does not rely on thousands of border crossings every day for the supply of food, has not been able to keep the delta variant out.
As for the United Kingdom, 38% of all of our food is imported every day—much of it in the bellies of passenger airliners, let us not forget—and that is just a single example of our absolute need to continue international travel. What we can do is slow down the arrival of new variants and the spread from countries with higher infection rates by prohibiting all travel to the highest risk countries, by limiting international travel to high-priority activities for the medium-risk countries, by quarantining new arrivals from at-risk countries and by aggressive test and trace, including surge testing when new outbreaks emerge. I break off to take this opportunity specifically to pay tribute to NHS Test and Trace. This is an organisation that is habitually traduced as an article of faith by Labour, but which is in fact a highly effective operation that has saved many lives.
All these actions by the Government have bought us time—time that allows our vaccination programme to get to a level that provides us all with an effective defence so that we can truly live with covid. As we were reminded just yesterday, we are tantalisingly close to achieving this milestone, but not quite yet. There is a criticism of the Government implicit in this motion that they were late in imposing travel restrictions to India in response to the emergence of the delta variant, but despite the protestations of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), this really is just another shameless example of Labour hindsight hard at work.
As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) admitted in her speech, it was the emergence of the delta variant, not India’s pre-variant infection rates, that changed the risk profile of travel, yet the Government placed India on the red list two weeks before the delta variant was identified as a variant of concern. In fact, it was six days before it was even deemed a variant of interest. The Labour fox is truly shot on that very important issue.
The UK does have a strong policy of restrictions at the border and remains vigilant to new variants, but it is a complicated, nuanced issue. We cannot just sound tougher on borders—it will have huge complicating and unintended consequences. I fail to understand Labour’s call for the removal of the amber list, other than that it is some kind of attempt to politicise public health messages. The traffic light system is a sensible approach, and amber covers countries where the risk of some travel with caution can be accepted if the benefit of that travel is high. It is a classic risk analysis—the risk of an event happening and its severity, and mitigation to reduce that risk to an acceptable level. In business, we do it all the time.
To remove this classification would be to prohibit important business and humanitarian travel to amber list countries without supporting data, putting at risk even more aviation and travel jobs. I suppose it would be called collateral damage. This should not be an issue for party manoeuvres. We should not be trying to out-tough each other in areas such as this. Labour should be working with the Government in the national interest to drive home simple travel messages. I am surprised and very disappointed that it is not.

Ben Spencer: We are an island nation, and we rely on our connections with the world for trade. I am sure that many Members would, like me, celebrate and congratulate the Government on the historic trade deal that was agreed today. We rely on our connections to get freight and to meet our friends and family. Many businesses and jobs rely on international travel. In my constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge, it is our lifeblood. We depend on our connections, both domestic and international, for jobs and to support businesses.
I therefore reject the premise of the motion that the Opposition have put forward today. They would have us isolate from the world as if we were some sort of zombie island—or maybe a zombie world, depending on how one views the analogy. For all the reasons that I have put forward, we cannot do so, because we are so dependent on our connections.
Our approach must be proportionate. It must be based on science, not on the false “no risk/high risk” dichotomy that has been presented. Covid is here to stay, and with new variants continuing to evolve, we need a system that is immune to them and that can adapt and evolve as the virus does. The Minister and I have had many discussions about the need for international safety standards and the fact that we can, should and must lead the world in supporting international travel—through whatever means, but fundamentally through the use of science and new technologies.
The Opposition’s proposal is backwards. It is built on a world where there are no vaccines and where there is no testing. Our plans have moved on. We have the science behind us, and our border plans are the foundation for safely bringing back international travel as things develop.

Jo Gideon: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge  (Dr Spencer). It is remarkable to hear how extrapolations are presented as facts in this debate. The Opposition, the party of the crystal ball, would have us believe that in their hands the pandemic would have been brought under control more quickly and more lives would have been saved. However, there is no evidence that even the Labour party could stop mutations of the virus reaching these shores, nor that it could ever overcome its ideological contempt for private sector involvement in the health service, whether in delivering world-class research and development or in supporting NHS testing, track and trace, and the vaccination roll-out.
Without the Government bringing together all sectors, we would not have had the incredible progress in vaccinating our nation that we have had. It is difficult to disprove hypotheticals, and if we look to other countries that have tried different approaches, we must recognise that their geography, population density and underlying health issues make effective comparisons impossible. No country found an easy answer to beating the pandemic. The strategy of reducing the spread until a mass vaccination can beat the virus has been adopted globally.
The Government’s investment in the research that delivered the AstraZeneca vaccine, the early purchase of more than 100 million doses while they were still under development, the speedy licensing of vaccines and the phenomenally successful roll-out have saved many, many thousands of lives. That is a fact, yet the Opposition fail to credit the Government for it, preferring to focus on the negatives. If we had imposed earlier lockdowns, they claim, we would have saved thousands of lives; if we had banned travel to and from India earlier, they claim, we could have stopped the delta variant reaching our shores.
We know that the challenge is far more complicated when it comes to closing UK borders. Should we have prevented British nationals who were returning from India from entering the country before the delta variant had been identified as a variant of concern? They were already required to quarantine at home for 10 days. As the Health Secretary told the Select Committee on Science and Technology last week:
“It is harder in a democracy to take some of the steps that some of the authoritarian countries took. Geography matters. Britain is an island…but we are a highly interconnected island…and a huge amount of our freight comes accompanied.”
This Government have always sought to keep the public informed about any decisions relating to the pandemic. In our democracy, we strive to impose any restrictions on people’s freedoms by consent rather than force, which is how we have seen such a high level of compliance, with exceptionally high levels of vaccine uptake among many age groups. Our decisions have been informed throughout by the advice of our scientific and medical experts, and as the advice has changed in line with the epidemiology, so have the guidelines.
We have a tough approach to our borders. The Opposition criticise the Government for moving Portugal’s categorisation from green to amber, and now seek to turn travel into a binary decision by removing the amber category, but life is not binary. Decisions about the road map as we emerge from the worst of the pandemic need to be more nuanced. We have moved on from the phase when choice was a simple one of lives versus livelihoods, to a plan to build back people’s  confidence—a plan to re-engage cautiously with normal activities while the vaccination programme powers on to provide the ultimate protection against the virus.
As a global trading nation with an amazing, diverse population, we have to consider travel not just as a holiday activity, but as one that is hugely important to our economy and our mental health. Many people, including me, have family abroad and are desperate to reconnect in person after 16 months of Zoom calls. Many have urgent family business, including, sadly, attending funerals. With the removal of the amber category, the cost of hotel quarantine might preclude many from such urgent travel and would also mean that families travelling to green destinations this summer could find themselves facing bills of thousands of pounds if the status of the country they visit changes before their return. That will hit those who can least afford it, because they will either have to decide not to risk travel or face a debt crisis as a result. I do not believe we should be penalising those who can least afford it.
The Opposition are consistent in their inconsistencies on the issue, guided, I imagine, by focus groups rather than the science: demanding certainty where there can be none as we tackle a completely novel virus; calling for more financial support for businesses while demanding greater lockdown measures, which would hit the economy hard; calling for extensions to furlough schemes and measures to keep workers at home rather than backing our plan for jobs and the gradual reopening of the country; and calling for the Government to introduce quarantine and then criticising its introduction and then calling for it to be expanded. We are looking to a cautious and irreversible route out of the pandemic, building back the confidence of the nation as we emerge from the restrictions; they are looking to scaremonger.
The Government’s approach is the right one, and I urge the Opposition to back it.

Andrew Bowie: I must start by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for his contribution. We almost got through an entire debate without mentioning the constitution and I was quite worried as to what I might say, but, thankfully, the hon. Member stood up and talked about Scottish independence—and suggested, if I am not wrong, that if Scotland had gotten independence from the United Kingdom, Scotland could be a covid-free country by now. That is incredible; it could be the only country in the world, it would seem, that has no covid. He may wish to correct me by intervening, but that is what I got from his contribution.
The hon. Gentleman suggested, too, that had Scotland been independent it might have taken different decisions from those of the UK Government, and I dare say that that might have been the case, but given the huge swathes of powers the Scottish Government already have over public health, transport, education, tourism and culture, it is incredible that just about every single decision has, with some exceptions, mirrored the decisions made by the UK Government, with some changes in terms of the timeline. I dare say we will find out when the promised public inquiry into covid in Scotland ever happens exactly what those decisions may have been that would have been so different from those taken by the UK Government.
I would also like to thank the Opposition for securing this debate today, because while I do not agree with their motion for reasons I shall expand on shortly, this is an incredibly serious issue that deserves to be debated in the House.
Before I go on, I should express or declare somewhat of an interest: my wife, being a Swedish national, has now not been able to see her family for a year and a half, so the restrictions on international travel are being felt very keenly indeed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) just mentioned, when we debate this topic we should remember that in talking about travel abroad we are not talking about people going off on holiday to lie in the sun; we are talking about families and friends being separated now for an incredibly long period of time. When the Government announced that loved ones were able to hug once again in their homes in the United Kingdom, for those people with family overseas those hugs felt a very long way off indeed.
Before I go on, I would also like to echo the passionate words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman)—who, sadly, is no longer in his place—in support of the aviation sector. Thousands and thousands of jobs across the country depend directly on or in support of a thriving aviation sector; those people do not want to be on furlough, and their employers—the airlines, the airport operators, the support services—do not want to be bailed out. They want to get on and do their job; to borrow from British Airways, they want to fly and to serve.
Before coming to the Chamber today, I looked up the passenger numbers for my local airport, Aberdeen International Airport, and as a regular user I would like to put on record my thanks to all the staff there from the very top to the very bottom, who have worked tirelessly over the last year and a half to keep the airport open, operating and indeed safe—and I can say with certainty that that would be the case in every airport across the United Kingdom over the past while. But it has been a torrid year. In the first three months of this year, 62,000 passengers passed through Aberdeen airport, but in the first three months of 2020 that figure was 398,000, so that is a decline of 84.5%. This is completely unsustainable. We need to get people flying again, but we need to do it safely, and that is why protecting public health is and will remain this Government’s No. 1 priority.
I was almost struck dumb with incredulity at Labour Members talking about a clear strategy. When Labour Members come to this place and talk about a clear strategy, we know that they are on manoeuvres. They have never been able to come up with a coherent policy for international travel. Having called for a quarantine, they then criticised the Government for introducing one. Then they changed their line again to making hotel quarantines mandatory for all of those arriving in the United Kingdom. They have called for it to be less and they have called for it to be increased. They have called for it to be expanded and they have called for the amber list to go. It is incredibly hard to keep up.
The motion today would fail to simplify the current arrangements, and instead would create further problems and cause much greater confusion. In removing any middle ground by removing the amber list, which is what they propose today—for which, may I add, there  still exists a strictly overseen, mandatory 10-day quarantine period—how do we decide where the cut-off point is between the green and the red, and what about those countries that are placed on the red list yet have far fewer cases than any other countries on that same list? It makes no sense. Such a two-tier system would no doubt cause further disruption to the aviation sector—an aviation sector the Labour party claims enthusiastically to support. The current traffic light system strikes the right balance, I believe, between caution and pragmatism, mitigating the risks of new variants while also allowing travel for essential reasons, and that is why I oppose the Opposition’s motion.

Jim McMahon: I thank all Members who have taken part in today’s Opposition day debate. I also repeat the thanks that have been offered to our vital NHS staff, to the military who are supporting its efforts and to all those in our airports, our airlines and, of course, our Border Force, who are working hard to make sure that our country can keep on moving, even in these very difficult times.
As with all Opposition day debates, of course, the Tory Whips Office has been busy sending out the top attack lines. They were distributed with gusto, and congratulations on that. What did not happen, unfortunately, was a genuine exchange about how we can navigate what is—this was said in the debate—a nuanced and very difficult period. How do we land in a way that supports a very key industry, but keeps our borders safe?
Yesterday the nation was watching, at 6 o’clock, the Prime Minister’s press conference. After gearing up for freedom day, as people were promised, over the intervening months and weeks, they were looking forward to getting back to a sense of normality. After so many sacrifices—people losing their jobs, people losing loved ones—and the nation rallying together to try to get us all through this together, naturally people want to know that the end is in sight, that the light is at the end of the tunnel and that their sacrifices have made a material difference.
People also want to know that the Government can be true to their word, and I am afraid that, again, the Government have been found wanting. Not for the first time—we have heard it before—the words do not match the reality. They said we will do “whatever it takes”, but that was not the reality for the self-employed and many parts of our economy. They said we will have a “world-beating” track and trace system, but that was not the experience of local authorities that had to deal with Serco call centres. They said, cruelly, that we will have a “protective ring” around our care homes, but we all know the human price that was paid when the words did not match the reality.
The Government will argue and they have argued—and they have sent out their Back Benchers to make this case—that these restrictions are required because we do not want to undermine the vaccination programme and that, as we are so close, let us just prolong the restrictions a bit longer and get through this together. That is true, which is why we recognise that the restrictions have to go on that bit longer, but the situation in which we find ourselves was entirely avoidable. That is where this debate leads us: it is about holding the Government to account for the decisions they make and their impact.
At the same time as Pakistan and Bangladesh were added to the red list there were calls for India to be added. With the delay in adding India to the red list, some 20,000 passengers flew into the UK, potentially carrying the delta variant that is now so prominent throughout our country. Some 20,000 passengers arrived in that time. The Government have not been clear about the data they are relying on and that informed that decision. They flip-flop between pointing to one piece of evidence and another, but every single time the evidence is tested, it does not hold up to scrutiny. The public want to know whether the sacrifices they are expected to make will make a difference at all. The Government need to be careful, because the more they send the public to the top of the hill only to let them down again, the more we will see public confidence diminish. We cannot afford that: we need the public of this country on our side.
We all know the real reason and why the Government will not release the data: if they were to release it, the data would show that India absolutely should have been put on the red list at the same time as Pakistan and Bangladesh were. That is what the data would show, but that did not sit comfortably with the Prime Minister, who was planning his trade visit. That was the real reason why the change was delayed. That one trade visit—that photocall and bit of publicity—was worth more than jobs in hospitality, in our wedding industry and in tourism and aviation. The photo shoot, the propaganda—it just was not. The Government say that it has to be about following the data and we absolutely believe that—we have been saying that from day one—but when tested, I am afraid they just do not pass the test.
We have heard some fantastic comments today, and I again thank all Members for taking part in an important debate. As the House would expect, I have a great deal of respect for the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who unfortunately is not in his place as we wrap up the conversation. He has done a good job of holding the Government to account and scrutinising the data, but I found his current position, expressed in this Opposition day debate, frankly quite baffling. To suggest that aviation is not asking for a bail-out completely contradicts every conversation I have had with airline operators, airport operators and people in the wider supply chain. They are crying out for financial support.
Our airports have kept supplies, including of the vaccine, coming into this country. Their operating costs cannot be reduced any more than they have been. By the way, the Government take a third of many airports’ operating costs in taxes and levies; that has not reduced but has continued. While airports have continued to keep the show on the road, they have had to deal with incoming passengers from high-risk countries—the red-list countries. They have had to get additional staff and put in additional measures, and the additional costs that have come with that have been significant. That has combined with the lack of consumer confidence.
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), laid out the case succinctly. The delta variant accounts for 40,000 cases in this country. The Government knew on 1 April that the  strain was in this country, so there was plenty of time to respond proportionately to make sure that it did not spread disproportionately in the way that, unfortunately, we have seen.
Some have pointed out a world of difference between red-list countries and amber-list countries, but they can actually be very close in respect of the risks they present. Why is someone who arrives from a red-list country escorted on to a coach and put into a 10-day quarantine in a secure hotel, but someone who arrives from an amber-list country can just go on the tube? They go home and the people they go home to do not have to self-isolate in the same way as the person who has arrived does, despite the fact that they could well be carrying the virus.
All we are asking for is a simplified system: it is either safe to go or it is not safe to go. If it is safe to go, we should give people the confidence to get back to flying and to take the holiday they deserve with absolute confidence; if it is not, it should be absolutely clear. We have heard Members on the Back Benches say that, in some cases, travel to amber-list countries is safe. At the same time, Ministers are telling members of the public not to travel to amber-list countries. Even the Government cannot make up their mind about the status of the amber list, let alone the public. The list also does not talk about what it means for the host country. It is all very well saying that we have a green list of countries that are safe to fly to, but they could have incoming restrictions that means it is impossible for British travellers to go there in a way that makes a break meaningful.
There have been plenty of misinterpretations of Labour’s position. We have been absolutely clear from the outset that any intervention taken in isolation will not keep this country safe. There should be a number of interventions, which, taken together, provide the protection that this country needs and that the public of this country deserve.
When we intervened on the 14-day quarantine, our criticism was twofold. First, we were late coming to that decision. We saw millions of passengers enter our country with no restrictions at all—one of the last countries in the world where they could do so. The 14-day quarantine did not take into account the risk that different countries pose. On that we are clear, countries and nations do not carry the virus; individuals carry the virus. It could well be that the virus is more widespread in certain countries—that follows a logic—which means that we must have a system that, first, accounts for higher-risk countries, and that, secondly, deals with the individuals who are coming into the country to make sure that they are tested, traced and, if they are a risk, quarantined.
Interestingly, we said, “Let’s get a system in place that deals with pre-testing, testing on arrival and then a further test a number of days afterwards to reduce the need to quarantine.” Call it hindsight, but the Government soon followed suit, and that is exactly what the Government have put in place. We have plenty of other ideas if the Government want to listen. We are happy to offer them, too. Providing that the evidence base is there and it is followed in the right way, then we on the Labour Benches will always support the Government effort, because the truth is that we need the Government to succeed. If the Government of the day do not succeed, we will not defeat the virus and none of us will succeed in beating the virus.
We had fantastic contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). All really homed in on the data. What do we know that points to why India was not on the red-list of countries that has led to the restrictions being extended and livelihoods potentially being affected? I am afraid that the Government have not come up with a compelling answer at all. It is all well and good for them to say that any ideas and suggestions that are put forward are not worth the paper they are written on, and then to dismiss them out of hand, which is exactly what has happened from day one. With the Government found wanting, we may raise the issue again, but they will come out with the usual spiel—that it is all about hindsight. However, on borders, on keeping the country safe, on quarantine, on pre-testing, and on having a clear system with our international partners, we have been absolutely consistent and have led from the front from day one.
The Government need to focus now on what Labour is saying today, because we have been leading from the front on this issue. We have the support of the aviation industry on this, and we have the support of many scientists as well. They do not want to be dragged into politics. They want their advice to be taken at face value; they do not want it to be dismissed out of hand and not published because it does not suit the Government’s agenda.
Our suggestions today are clear. First, the Government should take leadership on an international agreement on vaccine passports to give confidence to people that, when it is safe to do so, they can enjoy all that aviation and tourism have to offer. That will support that vital industry that provides 1.5 million jobs directly and through the supply chain. They should scrap the amber list, but then, within the red and the green lists, they should publish a direction of travel, so, if a country is on the green list today, is it going in the right direction or the wrong direction? There will be a number of people who booked a holiday in Portugal who will be wishing that they had not.
We are also asking for a robust hotel quarantine system. The Government need to do far more to ensure that the demand can be satisfied. We need to learn to live with covid—that has been stated a number of times—so what on earth are the Government doing to ensure that the supply of hotel accommodation can meet what could be increasing demand?
Finally, we need an aviation sector deal to ensure that that critical industry can build back from a point of strength, not weakness. We must ensure that we are a world leader in aviation and, critically, that we meet our climate change objectives by supporting it to grow from a point of strength, leading the world in clean aviation technology and supporting new jobs and new industry. That is what we are offering. Rather than looking back in six months’ time with hindsight, I suggest that the Government listen today.

Robert Courts: It is a great honour to conclude this important debate. We have heard so many wide-ranging and constructive contributions from both sides of the  House. I know that everyone in the House is determined to keep this horrendous virus under control, and the Government’s priority is to protect the public and the gains that we have made through the roll-out of our world-leading vaccine programme. I know that I speak for everyone in the House when I pay tribute, as many hon. and right hon. Members have, to all those involved in that roll-out.
We have some of the toughest border measures in the world to protect our country. We are taking a cautious, robust, sustainable approach to opening up international travel at a time when the vaccine roll-out is ongoing and infection rates are low. Everyone in this House wants to see international travel reopen fully as soon as it is safe for it to do so, as was said so eloquently by a number of Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). That is for all the reasons we have heard: to support the travel businesses that are so important to our constituencies and our country, and to enable people to see the friends and family that they have been separated from for so long.
That was put hugely eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who quite rightly pointed out that families have been kept apart. This is about far more than holidays, important though the travel business of course is. It is important, too, for people to do business and, yes, for people to go abroad and see the wonders of the world. That is something that, when it is safe, we all want to do.
However, there are those urging us to take tougher measures. They include the Opposition, of course, as well as the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). It is essential that any steps we take around international travel are safe, sustainable and proportionate. There are difficult decisions to be taken in government. We heard them explained so brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley). Those difficult decisions are what being in government is all about.

Sarah Owen: This is not just about taking difficult decisions; it is about taking them quickly, in a timely manner, so that they are effective. Why did it take 22 days for the Government to put India on the red list after the delta variant was first identified?

Robert Courts: The hon. Member is quite right: of course it is essential to make the difficult decisions, to make them quickly and to get them right. I will explain in just a moment how we have done that.
Before I do so, on quarantine measures, the Opposition have called for
“a clear, simply understood and proper hotel quarantine scheme in operation at the UK border to minimise the risk of introduction of new variants into the UK”.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) among many others, that is exactly what we have in place. Currently, every passenger is checked by Border Force and the brilliant Test and   Trace scheme, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) quite rightly paid tribute and which has been running for so many months now.
As of 15 February 2021, British and Irish nationals and those with residency rights in the UK who have passed through a red list country within 10 days of their arrival in the UK are required to quarantine for 10 days in a managed quarantine hotel. Passengers arriving from red list countries may enter the UK only at certain designated ports. Individuals who fail to book travel to the appropriate port will be denied boarding by the carrier.
On arrival in the UK, passengers required to enter managed quarantine will be met at passport control and guided through baggage reclaim and customs to the dedicated hotel transport, where they will be transported to their hotel. Direct flights from red list countries are only able to arrive into dedicated facilities at airports, including entire terminals, so long as passengers are segregated from other arrivals. At present, Birmingham and Heathrow airports are both operating dedicated facilities, and that may expand to include other airports in the future.
New variants present a worldwide challenge, as we have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) told us how many countries have experienced the challenges of variants, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). The Government continue to monitor new variants closely, and it is worth remembering that approximately 40% of the world’s sequencing capability is found in the UK. We have also put in place enhanced contact tracing for individuals identified as having a new variant, in order to minimise onward transmission. The new measures build on the tough action that the Government have already taken to increase security against the new variants from abroad.
We will keep all our measures under constant review to ensure that they remain necessary and proportionate. There are checkpoints in June, July and October. The measures are not set in stone; what we have designed is intended to be adaptable to the evolving epidemiological picture, and the UK Government are prepared to take action at any time to protect public health.
I notice that today the Opposition are trying to produce some sort of dodgy dossier, with a timeline of dates relating to our borders policy. The first date in that document is 6 January 2021, when they claim they urged us to get a grip on our borders. I am not entirely sure what they think that achieves, other than to illustrate how hopelessly behind the curve they are and how desperately they hope that hindsight will find them a way through. By the time Labour had woken up to this issue in January, the Government had already introduced self-isolation for all arrivals into the UK—a full six months earlier, on 8 June 2020.
Let me give the House some more dates that the Opposition might find interesting. On 8 June 2020, the Leader of the Opposition criticised our quarantine measures. On 29 June 2020, the shadow Transport Secretary called for quarantine to be replaced. On 3 July 2020, the Labour party called for
“the government’s quarantine measures to be lessened.”

Jim McMahon: I thought that, by intervening, I would allow the Minister a few seconds to sit down and bring himself back together. As he knows, in the original quarantine, where people were asked to self-isolate at home, only 1% of those who were asked to do so were contacted.

Robert Courts: That does not answer the point remotely; I am disappointed. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that, let us fast-forward to this year for a real fiesta of inconsistency.
On 2 February, the shadow Home Secretary called for mandatory hotel quarantine for all arrivals. On 23 March, the shadow Chancellor was saying it should just be done on a case-by-case basis. On 20 May—less than a month ago—the shadow International Trade Secretary said that the borders had to be opened because the international economy needed us to get going again. As usual, the Labour party is all over the place on this, trusting in hindsight and ignoring the facts.
Let us look at what actually happened. The delta variant did not become a variant of concern until 7 May 2021. By that point, India had already been on the red list for a full two weeks, and let us not forget that, even before it was added to the red list, passengers arriving had to take a pre-departure test and complete a passenger locater form, then self-isolate for 10 days on arrival—always the toughest measure—taking a test on day 2 and another on day 8. That is not a weak system, but one of the toughest border arrival systems in the world.
This morning the shadow Home Secretary—the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who I am delighted to see back this place—was unable to say when he would have acted on the delta variant. What he seems to be suggesting, as most of the Opposition seem to be suggesting today, is that they would red-list any country any time they saw a mutation. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that at any given time there are hundreds of mutations. Are hon. Members seriously saying that we should stop all travel from wherever, whenever there is a mutation?

Sarah Owen: If, as the Minister says, the border policy was such a success, why is the delta variant now the dominant variant in this country, and why are we seeing an extension to the lockdown rules?

Robert Courts: The hon. Member clearly was not listening to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire when he listed all the countries in the world where the delta variant is now becoming dominant.
Let us look at another aspect of the Opposition’s policy, in which the right hon. Member for Torfaen championed Australia and New Zealand and said we should emulate them to keep out variants of concern. Given that Melbourne now has the delta variant, I am somewhat confused as to how he thinks that would have helped. He ought to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson). Another factor he ought to remember is the many citizens from those two countries who are currently unable to get back to their own country. Is Labour going to choose who gets to come back and who does not? Is that what is really proposed?
Exactly what is the right hon. Gentleman proposing? The Opposition cannot tell us how long they would keep the borders closed, they cannot say when they would have red-listed India, and they cannot say how freight would keep flowing. We have heard that 40% of our freight comes in and out in the bellies of passenger aircraft. Opposition Members do not even realise that there is a problem there, let alone try to address it.
The right hon. Member for Torfaen said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), that he wanted to see a growing green list, but in the motion he says he wants to maintain a “tightly managed Green List”. They are proposing closing down and opening up simultaneously. That is the level of policy we have from the Opposition. They play politics, but they do not have policies. They are drifting, desperate, and wise only after the event. They do not have a plan. It is this Government who are working to keep people safe and get our country through the pandemic, with strong border measures, providing testing and rolling out vaccines, and with a plan and a purpose. That is why people put their trust in us.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 363.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Climate Change

That the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 13 May, be approved.—(David T. C. Davies.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 16 June (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations, Tariff Quotas and Wine) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 13 May, be approved.—(David  T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 585), dated 14 May 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 May, be approved.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.

Joint Committee on Human Rights

Ordered,
That Fiona Bruce and Pauline Latham be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and David Simmonds and Angela Richardson be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Petition - McVitie’s Tollcross factory proposed closure

David Linden: Since the news broke that Pladis, the global company that owns the McVitie’s brand, plans to close its factory in the east end of Glasgow, local people have certainly not been shy in expressing their opposition, and there is a groundswell of support for saving the 470 jobs at the Tollcross site, which is heartening. The petition organised by workers at the factory currently has over 52,000 signatures, which is a staggering number in such a short space of time.
In presenting the petition to Parliament in support of the McVitie’s workers, I hope to catch the attention of Pladis, to show it that the public are not happy with its proposed withdrawal from Scotland. The Glasgow East factory has stood on that site for almost a century, and it would devastate the local area and economy if it ceased operations. Generations of families, often simultaneously, have worked at the factory, and the loyalty of the workforce cannot be questioned, as many people have been employed there for decades.
Generations of families in the east end of Glasgow have helped to propel the McVitie’s brand to contemporary dominance over the domestic biscuit market, outselling the next seven biggest brands combined. You would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that McVitie’s stands on the shoulders of its dedicated workforce, past and present, and the strength of feeling among the general public about that is apparent.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with Pladis and advise them to reverse the proposal to close the Tollcross site.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Notes that the Tollcross McVitie’s employs 468 people from across Glasgow East; declares that as such the proposed closure of the factory would be equivalent to economic Armageddon to what is already a fragile local economy; notes throughout the pandemic, Pladis Global’s employees worked at the Tollcross factory as key workers whilst much of the country safely worked from home; notes the workforce has been loyal and committed for many years, with some employees working at the Tollcross factory for decades; notes that many employees also have a family history of working at the factory and in some cases, several generations of the same family currently work at the factory simultaneously; notes that the McVitie’s company has had a continuous presence in Scotland since 1839 and that the brand has become synonymous with Scotland; declares that Pladis should honour the history of the McVitie’s brand in Scotland and the loyal workforce in the Tollcross factory and fully engage with local and national government, and ultimately reverse the proposal to close the Tollcross site.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with Pladis and advise them to reverse the proposal to close the Tollcross site.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002669]

Kenly Wind Farm

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Wendy Chamberlain: The University of St Andrews is the oldest university in Scotland. It is notable not only for being where the Earl and Countess of Strathearn met and recently celebrated their 10th wedding anniversary, but for being a world leader in education, as a university ranked first in Scotland and third in the UK last year. It is a hub of groundbreaking research and innovation, and the largest employer in my constituency of North East Fife.
As part of that innovation, St Andrews has championed sustainability for over two decades, long before it was the dominant issue that it is today. Always leading the charge, the university has pledged to reach net zero by 2035, which is a significant commitment, given not just the date, but the approach that the university is taking. The university, led by its environmental sustainability board, chaired by Professor Sir Ian Boyd FRS, chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from 2012 to 2019, and now professor of biology at the university, is taking on the net zero challenge, alongside local community organisations and businesses. Indeed, I attended the first meeting of the outreach group only last month. Under complementary environmental sustainability and carbon management plans, the scope of its approach encompasses procurement activities and the travel of international students coming to the university to study. I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in congratulating it on its progress to date.
Reaching that goal involves a number of practical elements, including a biomass plant on the university’s Eden campus, which was supported via the joint working of the UK and Scottish Governments on the Tay cities deal; increasing the use of solar technology; and harnessing the wind power that my hair is often subject to in North East Fife by building a small wind farm at Kenly on land owned by the university.
Planning permission for that project was initially granted in 2013—eight years ago, in a time before referendums. At that time, the Ministry of Defence seemed to be happy to work with St Andrews, supporting the university and its application. The MOD is a statutory consultee in the UK planning system for developments that could impact MOD sites, which includes wind farms. That is a critical issue, because also located in my constituency is the former RAF, now Army, base at Leuchars and its airfield. The MOD rightly has to consider issues such as the potential for wind turbines to interfere with radar systems. While the MOD raised an objection in the formal planning process, the application was granted on condition that an agreement could be reached on mitigating any interference. It was at that point, for reasons that remain unclear, that the MOD’s willingness to engage seemed to break down.
In the past eight years, St Andrews has put forward multiple proposals and made numerous, repeated and high-level attempts to explore a solution with the MOD. Indeed, I myself have already attempted, prior to this evening, to facilitate some movement, but the MOD has refused to provide any real meaningful engagement to  date. It says that the proposals to mitigate interference with the radar are not good enough, but fails to articulate what would be enough.
This is not just an isolated local issue. There are 782 onshore wind farms around the UK, amounting to over 11,000 turbines and up to 66 MW of energy each year—enough to power 18.4 million homes—and this trend is not slowing down. The trade group RenewableUK is predicting that onshore wind will continue to be a preferred alternative energy source as we work towards meeting net zero goals. Organisations are being encouraged by this Government to make the switch. Last year, the net zero business champion, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), was appointed. Organisations are encouraged to join the United Nations’ Race to Zero campaign and are celebrated when they do. Part of these commitments will inevitably involve switching to clean energies such as wind. Simply put, there will be more applications for wind farms such as Kenly.
Kenly is not alone in being proposed near a military base. There are 33 RAF bases around the UK, of which at least 13 could be classed as coastal. Coastal areas have some of the best weather conditions for turbines. The Plymouth coastline, south Wales, north Norfolk, Liverpool, Belfast and the East Riding of Yorkshire are all areas where there are both wind farms and an RAF base. The question of how to safely build wind farms near to RAF and other military bases is not unique to Kenly, and this has implications. First, it highlights the lack of transparency in the system, whereby some projects have been allowed to go ahead with mitigations agreed, while others such as Kenly have failed to progress. Just up the road from Kenly, at the now former Michelin factory site in Dundee, two wind turbines were erected. The MOD also objected to this application when it was first made on the ground that it would interfere with the radar at Leuchars, but none the less an agreement was made. Without transparency on how these agreements were reached, St Andrews does not know why or how that project was allowed to go ahead while Kenly was not.
The fact that more onshore wind farms are likely to seek permissions and the likelihood that a proportion will be near RAF bases shows that it is vital for the MOD to put in place a comprehensive plan to work with developers to find meaningful solutions. If the MOD is not working to support wind farms such as Kenly, I wonder what it is doing. On 30 March this year, the MOD published its own climate change and sustainability strategic approach with a foreword by the Minister himself. This includes a commitment to working sustainably, to encouraging the development of low or zero carbon solutions, and to being a partner in the UK’s green transition. In fact, it includes an action plan, which includes a pledge to:
“Grow awareness inside and outside of Defence with a communications plan on commitments and work on climate change and sustainability, inspiring understanding among our people, the wider public, industry and international partners.”
To me, that sounds like the sort of commitment that would involve engaging with projects such as Kenly wind farm and constructively engaging with initiatives to tackle the climate emergency.
The MOD, it is true, is looking at mitigation solutions and novel technologies for use at offshore wind farms. I am sure the Minister will point out that there is an  ongoing competition for proposals which closes this week. However, this is not relevant to the 782 onshore wind farms such as Kenly around the UK, as different mitigation solutions—different ways of using technology—are understandably used on land compared with offshore. Even if the solutions were relevant to onshore windfarms, this is a very slow process. It began when the MOD last directly engaged with St Andrews in 2015, and some six years later the competition is only just entering its second phase. Proceeding at this rate, it will be 2033 before the process finishes—too late for St Andrews and its goal to achieve net zero by 2035, and frankly too late for all of us. We all know that to limit global warming to 1.5° C we need to make significant changes now. We cannot afford to wait to finish this process to get started. Organisations that take on this responsibility—that are putting themselves forwards to tackle this challenge—should be supported and not stopped.
It is now two years since this House declared a climate crisis, and the situation has only worsened since that time, with the UK’s contribution to global carbon dioxide emissions continuing to outstrip its share of the global population. This is an issue that my constituents in North East Fife care about deeply. As a prospective parliamentary candidate in September 2019, I took part with other candidates and the then MP for North East Fife in the Line in the Sand climate strike ably led by young people from local high schools. During the subsequent election, students supportive of the Kenly development attended the main hustings in the constituency and made their voices heard. Yes, there were local objections during the planning process, but the rapid development of wind technologies will result in a more efficient and less obtrusive development.
The Government state that they are putting a green recovery at the front and centre of their plans, and we know that a shift to clean renewable energy has to be a key part of that process. Just this week, the Prime Minister was in Devon for the G7 summit, where commitments were made to tackle the climate crisis at home and globally, including a commitment to green energy. Later this year, the UK—Glasgow—will be hosting COP26, where I am sure pledges will again be made on green energy. We are told that it is a priority for the Government, and that may be true for some parts of it.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has published a 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, and the Scotland Office has signed up to the previously mentioned Tay cities deal, which supports sustainable initiatives. So, I hope that this is a case of the MOD just needing to catch up. However, if, as the Minister himself wrote in his foreword to the MOD strategic approach, it is determined to play its full part in helping the Government to address climate change head-on, that needs to happen now.
St Andrews has been trying to work with the MOD on the conditions needed to build Kenly wind farm for eight years. The wind farm would save 7,500 tonnes of carbon per year. It would secure energy pricing into the future, freeing up funding for world-class teaching and research for a sector already hard-hit by the covid pandemic. The Government should support that as part of their aspirations for the UK to become a global innovation hub. Ultimately, it would allow St Andrews to become self-sufficient in electrical energy.
St Andrews accepts the need to work with the MOD. It was for that reason that it engaged with the MOD so early in the planning process. Its frustrations at a lack of ongoing meaningful discussions are entirely understandable. It needs to know what the MOD wants, so that it can try to provide it. If there are no ways to mitigate the risks to RAF radar, that needs to be communicated with full reasoning.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to indicate in his response whether he will agree to meet representatives from the university, the MOD’s wind farm team, me and other stakeholders so that finally a constructive way forward can be agreed.

Jeremy Quin: Let me begin by thanking the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for raising this important issue. I know from correspondence how keen she is to support the interests of her constituency, and it is a pleasure to respond.
I recognise that the status of the planning application for a wind farm at Kenly is matter of concern for her, the University of St Andrews and her constituents. We certainly share her desire for a swift and amicable resolution to an issue that, as the hon. Lady said, has become far too protracted. She paid tribute to the staunch work of the University of St Andrews and its ambitious plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2035. I would very much like to echo those remarks.
The impressive measures that the university has already taken to do that include using modern technology to drive energy efficiency and its Eden campus project. Since 2018, as I understand it, a 20% reduction in the university’s carbon footprint has already been delivered through solar energy and biomass heat. The Government share St Andrews’ enthusiasm to reduce carbon emissions, introducing our legally binding target of net zero by 2050 and working towards what we all—including the hon. Lady—hope will be a successful conclusion to COP26 in Glasgow later this year.
In the integrated review, the Government set out how climate change was our No. 1 international priority. We in Defence are determined to play our part in achieving the UK’s ambitions. In our climate change and sustainability strategic approach, which the hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to and which we published in March, we set out how our approach to sustainable procurement, carbon reduction and better utilisation of our estate can help to deliver results even as we learn to adapt and operate in increasingly unforgiving theatres. At President Biden’s recently inaugurated discussions on climate change, at which the Secretary of State spoke, the US Defence Secretarty, Lloyd Austin, commented that UK defence had “raised the bar” on climate change as an issue. We certainly hope to continue to do so.
We recognise the vital importance of renewable energy in helping us to meet our goals. Within the defence estate, we recently announced a £120 million project to deliver four solar farms over the next five to seven years, resulting in £1 billion in energy-efficiency savings and reducing emissions by 2,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide  equivalent. The use of wind energy on the estate is very much an option to which Defence is open, where it is viable and consistent with training.
The Government are delighted to have seen the increase in the use of wind and solar energy, which now account for such a substantial proportion of total UK electricity generation. However, the very welcome expansion in wind farms has had to be monitored, and continues to be, for the impact on radar and, in particular, on civil and military air traffic control. We have a duty to protect the security and wellbeing of the people of the United Kingdom. That requires us to be able to use radar effectively to monitor our airspace where required. There is in particular a vital task of ensuring, as I say, that air traffic control has clear line of sight to help air traffic, its passengers and crew to land safely.
Many wind farms have been able to proceed, after consideration, without issue; however, we have also been keen to support the sector to find solutions that can enable further projects to go ahead. The Royal Air Force, in partnership with the Offshore Wind Industry Council, has formed a joint taskforce to develop radar mitigations. The hon. Lady is right that it focuses particularly on offshore wind and air defence radar, because that is where the greatest capacity can be released to achieve our important renewable energy targets. We also expect the lessons that we learn to be applicable, and more useful, in a wider context, including onshore.
Last year, the RAF, the UK Defence and Security Accelerator and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ran a competition to seek new technological solutions to mitigate the impact of offshore wind turbines on air defence systems. That included ways to reduce radar clutter caused by wind farms, improvements to the probability of intruder detection, the capability to fill or remove gaps in radar coverage, alternatives to radar and alterations to the design of the wind turbines.
In the first phase, DASA awarded contracts to Thales, QinetiQ, Saab, TWI and Plextek DTS to fast-track their ideas for technologies that can mitigate the impact of wind farms on the UK’s air defence radar system. Phase 2 of the competition has just closed and the winners will be announced on 8 August. I therefore assure the hon. Lady that the Ministry of Defence is keen to see the opportunities presented by wind farms expanded and, what is more, is working creatively and with the active participation of the sector, which I would like to acknowledge, to find mitigations that work and that will allow further expansion.
Having laid out the context, I turn to the specifics of Kenly, and St Andrews’ plan to build six wind turbines, capable of generating 12.3 MW of electricity and saving over 9,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. The unfortunate reality, as the hon. Lady recognises, is that the project is just eight miles from the air traffic control radar at Leuchars Station. That is why, back in 2011, the MOD was involved in the initial planning process and undertook a thorough technical and operational assessment. The findings were clear: the turbines, as the proposals stood, would cause an unacceptable impact upon the air traffic control radar. Not only could they be mistaken for aircraft, but they could cause confusing radar clutter.
We cannot afford to take a risk that could put lives at risk, but to be clear, we did not rule out the proposal. Instead, we agreed with the developer that the project could go ahead as long as they provided an appropriate radar mitigation scheme before the turbines were erected. To assist developers we have a clear approach to such schemes based on a three-phase model: the identification of potential technical solutions, the trialling of preferred technical solutions, and the implementation of the technical solution.
I appreciate that the developer has made a number of attempts to proffer mitigation for the wind farm. Two such attempts involved an infill radar solution based on Edinburgh airport air traffic control radar. Those attempts were unsuccessful for various reasons, including that the proposal would have resulted in the loss of radar for an important area in the approach to the station below 900 feet, which would have presented a significant safety risk. There were also concerns about the ability to achieve seamless integration between the Edinburgh and Leuchars radars.
I do not think that it is fair to say that the MOD is not responsive. We have continued to engage. I recall that a proposal was made for a holographic radar, which I believe was the basis for the original 2013 planning application and to which the MOD did not raise objections. However, it was a higher-cost mitigation and required further evidencing. I do not believe that it was progressed by the developer but, to be clear, if a way forward that will provide mitigation can be found by the developer, through that hologram radar or other routes, we would be very keen to look at the proposal afresh and see if we can make it work.
The good news is that since 2011 significant work across the sector has been undertaken, and that continues. The hon. Lady mentioned Dundee. I do not know the details of that off the top of my head, but it is in all our interests that technology and solutions are shared. Provided that there is not a commercial or other confidentiality reason, I see no reason why that information could not be shared. I undertake to look at that for her and see if anything can be shared. I apologise in advance if there are commercial reasons that prevent it, but it is a fair and reasonable request, and I will take it under advisement and return to her.
Further to the hon. Lady’s request, if she would be kind enough to work with me I would be pleased to facilitate a meeting between St Andrews and my colleagues in the Defence Equipment and Support wind farm team. I appreciate that they have met before, indeed as recently as September 2020—again, I think at her prompting—but the MOD remains open to considering any radar mitigation scheme proposed in future. If such a meeting would be helpful, I will certainly ensure that it is facilitated.
A solution that benefits the environment, cuts carbon and maintains our radar safety net is surely the best solution for all concerned. If my team are able to guide St Andrews on our views on the most recent technological developments and wider MOD thinking, which may help it to produce a solution that is acceptable, that is something that we should all certainly welcome.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Zarah Sultana


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
  Ben Everitt


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
  Kenny MacAskill


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Zarah Sultana


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Owen Thompson


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Zarah Sultana


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Zarah Sultana


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) PC)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore